which internal organizational factors determine the …

September, 2015

MASTER THESIS

WHICH INTERNAL ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS DETERMINE THE PRO-ENTREPRENEURSHIP ORGANIZATIONAL ARCHITECTURE?

BAS HAARHUIS S1527118 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION INNOVATION & ENTREPRENEURSHIP 1st Supervisor: Prof. A.J. Groen 2nd Supervisor: Dr. O. Belousova

I

Abstract

Nowadays, organizations have to continuously run faster to stay ahead of their

competitors. Corporate entrepreneurship (CE) may help organizations to win this race and

gain a sustainable competitive advantage. However, it is difficult for organizations to create

an internal organizational environment which can increase the entrepreneurialness of

organizations. Therefore, the aim of this study is to contribute to the corporate

entrepreneurship literature by investigating the following research question: “Which internal

organizational factors determine the pro-entrepreneurship organizational architecture

(PEOA)?”. In this study, a literature review was first conducted to find factors which could

determine an internal organizational environment which is entrepreneurially intensive, also

known as PEOA. After reviewing the literature, a qualitative case-study approach is applied to

collect empirical data from four case studies in the Northern Netherlands. The results indicate

that seven factors are important for the CE process and thus can determine the pro-

entrepreneurship organization architecture. To start, three factors are indicated as sufficient

and necessary and are thus crucial and stimulating determinants of the PEOA. Those are (1)

long-term orientation, (2) resources, and (3) strategic legitimation. Additionally, four factors

are indicated as stimulating determinants of the pro-entrepreneurship organizational

architecture including (4) management support, (5) work discretion/autonomy, (6) organic

structure, and (7) networking within the organization. In the discussion, the results are

critically reflected upon by theory, which revealed several theoretical implications. Finally,

this study suggests some practical implications and suggestions for further research.

Keywords: corporate entrepreneurship, pro-entrepreneurship organizational architecture,

long-term orientation, resources, strategic legitimation, management support, work

discretion/autonomy, organic structure, networking.

II

Acknowledgement

Since organizations and how they manage both exploration and exploitation raised my

interest, I wanted to gain in depth knowledge about this topic. Corporate entrepreneurship is a

way to explore new businesses and, as such, gain a sustainable competitive advantage.

Therefore I have chosen to write my master thesis on this topic as part of my master Business

Administration at the University of Twente. Conducting this master thesis enriched my

competences and knowledge on this topic.

However, without the support of several important people it would never have been possible

for me to realize this master thesis. I want to use this opportunity to thank these people. First

of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. A.J. Groen for his connections with several

organizations and his knowledge and feedback during my master thesis. I also want to thank

my second supervisor Dr. O. Belousova for her great knowledge regarding this topic and her

feedback and guidelines. Next, I want to thank F. van der Meulen, NPAL, and the

participating organizations in this study. Without their participation and information, this

study could not have taken place.

Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their support during my master thesis.

In the past five months I spent a lot of time trying to finish this final project, sometimes at the

cost of my social life. Therefore I am thankful for their understanding.

Table of Contents

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... I

Acknowledgement ..................................................................................................................... II

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Problem statement ............................................................................................................ 2

1.2 Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Background information .................................................................................................. 3

1.4 Master thesis outline ......................................................................................................... 4

2. Theoretical framework ........................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Types of corporate entrepreneurship and definition......................................................... 5

2.2 Entrepreneurial strategy ................................................................................................... 7

2.3 The literature review ........................................................................................................ 8

2.4 The structure of the literature review: a pro-entrepreneurship organizational architecture

................................................................................................................................................ 8

2.5 The factors determining a pro-entrepreneurship organizational architecture ................ 10

2.6 The conceptual model .................................................................................................... 14

3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 18

3.1 The identification phase ................................................................................................. 18

3.1.1 Measurement construct, data analysis and reliability analysis ................................ 18

3.1.2 Data collection ......................................................................................................... 19

3.2 The assessment phase ..................................................................................................... 20

3.2.1 Sample selection ...................................................................................................... 20

3.2.2 Data collection ......................................................................................................... 20

3.2.3 Case description ...................................................................................................... 22

3.2.4 Measurement constructs and reliability analysis ..................................................... 23

3.2.5 Data analysis ........................................................................................................... 24

4. Results .................................................................................................................................. 26

4.1 Within-case analysis ....................................................................................................... 26

4.1.1 TechServCo ............................................................................................................. 26

4.1.2 ErgoCo .................................................................................................................... 30

4.1.3 BuilderCo ................................................................................................................ 34

4.1.4 LightCo .................................................................................................................... 39

4.2 Cross-case analysis ......................................................................................................... 43

4.2.1 Culture-related factors ............................................................................................. 43

4.2.2 Structure-related factors .......................................................................................... 45

4.2.3 Reward systems ....................................................................................................... 47

4.2.4 The availability of resources ................................................................................... 49

4.2.5 Strategic legitimation .............................................................................................. 51

4.3 Patterns between factors across cases ............................................................................ 52

4.4 The nature of factors ...................................................................................................... 53

4.5 Summary of the results ................................................................................................... 58

5. Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 59

5.1 Culture-related factors .................................................................................................... 59

5.2 Structure-related factors ................................................................................................. 60

5.3 Reward systems .............................................................................................................. 61

5.4 The availability of resources .......................................................................................... 62

5.5 Strategic legitimation ..................................................................................................... 63

5.6 Propositions regarding the PEOA .................................................................................. 63

5.7 Patterns between factors ................................................................................................. 63

5.8 Additional factors ........................................................................................................... 64

5.9 Theoretical development of the PEOA .......................................................................... 65

6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 67

6.1 Answers to the research questions ................................................................................. 67

6.1.1 Sub-question 2 ......................................................................................................... 67

6.1.2 Sub-question 3 ......................................................................................................... 68

6.1.3 The main research question ..................................................................................... 69

6.2 Theoretical implications ................................................................................................. 71

6.3 Practical implications ..................................................................................................... 72

6.4 Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 73

6.5 Suggestions for further research ..................................................................................... 74

7. Bibliography ......................................................................................................................... 76

8. Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 83

Appendix I: Questionnaire identification phase ................................................................... 83

Appendix II: Interview protocol ........................................................................................... 89

Appendix III: Questionnaire assessment phase .................................................................... 95

Appendix IV: Cronbach alpha’s questionnaire assessment phase ..................................... 101

Appendix V: Operationalization of the codes .................................................................... 102

Appendix VI: The codebooks of the four cases ................................................................. 104

Appendix VII: Total quantitative results ............................................................................ 128

Master Thesis Bas Haarhuis 1

1. Introduction

It is not a new phenomenon that organizations have to continuous run faster in order to

stay ahead of their competition. This is commonly known as the Red Queen Effect (Barnett

and Sorenson, 2002). Corporate entrepreneurship (CE) can help organizations win this race

because it can stimulate new business (NB) creation and has been linked by several scholars

to growth, innovation, flexibility and performance (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990). Furthermore,

Miller and Friesen (1985) argued that CE can avoid stagnation and decline because it can lead

to innovations, changes and improvements in the marketplace. Therefore, CE can be an

interesting stimulus for sustainable competitive advantages.

CE occurs when initiatives from individuals, groups, divisions or SBU’s create a new

organization, induce corporate renewal or trigger innovation within that organization, which

then leads to the creation of a new market, new products or to changes of the competitive

landscape in the market (Sharma and Chrisman, 1999; Schumpeter, 1934; and Stopford and

Baden-Fuller, 1994). This process can be either formal or informal (Zahra, 1991). In a formal

process, CE has been recognized as a separate organizational strategy (Ireland, Covin, and

Kuratko, 2009). Yet, whatever the cause of CE is, some organizations are more

entrepreneurial than others. The reason for this may be reflected in different angles of the

organization. For example, the success of an entrepreneurial strategy or informal

entrepreneurial activities is somewhat dependent on the internal organizational environment

(Hornsby, kuratko and Zahra, 2002). In addition, some internal organizational environments

are more entrepreneurially intense than others (Morris, Kuratko, Covin, 2011). The effect of

the internal organizational environment on CE is not a new subject in the literature; in fact,

different scholars have indeed researched internal organizational factors associated with an

entrepreneurially intense internal environment. For instance, Covin and Slevin (1991)

proposed a conceptual model for CE on an organizational level and integrated internal

organizational factors. Furthermore, Kuratko, Montagno and Horsnby (1990, 2005b, 2014),

and Hornsby et al. (2002, 2013) tried to determine and measure this internal organizational

environment. They provided literature with the corporate entrepreneurship assessment

instrument (CEAI), and found in 2002 that their proposed factors explain 43% of the variance

(Hornsby et al., 2002). The CEAI consists of management support, work

discretion/autonomy, reward systems, the availability of resources and organizational

boundaries. This instrument can indicate how entrepreneurially intense the internal


organizational environment is, in other words, it can provide insight in the pro-

entrepreneurship organizational architecture (PEOA) (Ireland et al., 2009; Hornsby et al.,

2013). However, the CEAI exhibits validity problems (Hornsby, Holt, Kuratko, 2008;

Hornsby et al. 2013) and a study of Hornsby et al. (2002) showed that some of its factors did

not meet the significance requirements. Therefore, the researchers shifted between the

amounts of factors which influence the extent to which the CEAI can indicate the PEOA.

Altogether, there is a lot of research about these internal organizational factors, however these

factors roam in literature and a consistent configuration of these internal organizational

factors is missing. Therefore, the literature still lacks a well-covered PEOA.

1.1 Problem statement

In the past decades, the field of CE has developed rapidly and several researchers tried

to isolate organizational factors that stimulate CE (Holt, Rutherford, Clohessy, 2007).

However, while the entrepreneurial research domain is caught between the efforts to

overcome drawbacks of newness and the need to achieve maturity (Cornelius, Landström and

Persson, 2006), literature still does not reveal a complete or stable PEOA. Hence,

organizations, that want to be entrepreneurial may face several issues, as they do not know

how to stimulate CE. Factors of the internal environment can have a wide range of effects on

CE, since they can both stimulate, and impede CE. Therefore, focusing on the wrong internal

factors can cause problems concerning competitiveness, wealth creation, and innovativeness.

Hence, gaining deeper insight into organizational factors which can determine the PEOA is of

great importance, not only for practitioners as previously pointed out, but also for scholars: a

more complete PEOA can be used as a basis for further research. Therefore, the aim of this

study is to find out which factors determine the PEOA in order to provide an available

measurement tool to indicate the PEOA. Furthermore, testing this new measurement tool in

Europe may increase the applicability of the instrument.

1.2 Research Questions

In order to meet the research objectives of this study, the following research question

will be answered:

Which internal organizational factors determine the pro-entrepreneurship organizational

architecture?


This research question can be divided into several sub-questions which will help to answer the

main research question:

1. What is corporate entrepreneurship?

2. What are the factors determining the pro-entrepreneurship organizational architecture,

according to literature?

3. How does perception of the pro-entrepreneurship organizational architecture vary

across companies and why?

1.3 Background information

This study will take place at the Noordelijke Productiviteits Alliantie (NPAL). NPAL

is a network organization and focusses on the competitive power of the Northern Netherlands.

The design of this study fits well into their area of interest because NPAL would like to know

the level of corporate entrepreneurship of the organizations in their network, and how they

can increase it. NPAL cares of the continuous improvement of organizations. This is realized

by the formation of clusters and a support structure for better, faster and cheaper production.

Various activities are developed and organized, which stimulates the process. The aim of

NPAL is to be a contact point for organizations that want to continuously improve their

productivity. The core business of NPAL is to create clusters for improvements, a CEO

platform and projects, and provide a support structure to increase their innovative ability

which in turn can create sustainable competitive advantage. Furthermore, NPAL will guide

organizations for as long as their internal culture for continuous improvement is growing and

until it is embedded in their organization. NPAL has grown into a network organization in

which more than two hundred people from a hundred leading organizations participate.

Recently, they have booked positive results, which can be expressed as one hundred eighty

working hours per participant and a total investment of EUR 8,500,000 by the participating

organizations. This study will take place in a single component of NPAL’s network, namely

the CEO platform. The CEO platform includes forty leading organizations from different

industries. The results of this study may help NPAL to set up a program to strengthen

sustainable competitive advantage by encouraging CE at the organizations connected with

NPAL.


1.4 Master thesis outline

This study is structured as follows. In chapter 2, the theoretical framework, the

literature will be reviewed and synthesized to find out which factors determine the PEOA.

Furthermore, diving into the research domain of CE could also reveal additional factors. In

chapter 3 the methods used will be discussed and justified. In chapter 4 the results will be

presented, and they may show relationships between factors and the corporate entrepreneurial

process (CE process). Finally, in chapter 5 the research question will be answered and the

limitations will be discussed.


2. Theoretical framework

In this chapter, a theoretical framework is developed in order to provide theoretical

answers to the research questions of this study. Firstly, different types and a definition of CE

will be described, referring to sub-question 1. Secondly, different influencers of CE will be

pointed out. Thirdly, a literature review is conducted to develop a conceptual model which

answers sub-question 2.

2.1 Types of corporate entrepreneurship and definition

In the last decades a great amount of literature has been written about CE, and this

subject is gaining ever more attention (Holt et al. 2007). As a consequence the research

domain is extensive. For example, Gartner (1990) recognized two streams of

conceptualizations about CE. The first cluster of researchers focused on the characteristics of

CE, while the second group focused on the outcome of it. In addition, Stevenson and Jarillo

(1990) distinguished three different streams in entrepreneurship namely: why do

entrepreneurs act, how do entrepreneurs act and what happens when entrepreneurs act. In

these three main streams, ‘the why’ focusses more on causes for entrepreneurial behavior and

is concerned with the characteristics of entrepreneurs and environmental variables; ‘the how’

reflects the behavior of the entrepreneurs; ‘the what’ considers the effects or results of

entrepreneurial behavior. Specifically, ‘the what’ can be defined as carrying out new

combinations (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990). According to Schumpeter (1934), these new

combinations can be divided into five different types: (1) bringing new or better quality

products on the market; (2) a new method of production; (3) entering a new market; (4) a new

supplier; (5) a new organization. The study of Sharma and Chrisman (1999) differs from these

thoughts of Schumpeter about entrepreneurship in the sense that they differentiate it from

usual innovation. In their study they reconcile different definitions and come up with the

following definition, which frames this discussion and specifies CE in this study: “corporate

entrepreneurship is the process whereby an individual or a group of individuals, in

association with an existing organization, create a new organization, or instigate renewal or

innovation within that organization” (Sharma and Chrisman, 1999, p. 18). Apparently, the

definition consists of three types of CE, namely: create a new organization or corporate

venturing, corporate renewal, and innovation. Alternatively, these three types can also be

distinguished in two types of CE. Corporate venturing and innovation lead to change within

the firm and corporate renewal leads to change of the firm itself (Guth and Ginsberg, 1990).


Within this concept, innovation can be seen as an entrepreneurial activity since it involves

new combinations that can change the competition in a market, or lead to the creation of a

new market (Schumpeter, 1934, Stopford and Baden-Fuller, 1994), or lead to the creation and

introduction of products, production processes and organizational systems (Zahra, 1995).

Although this can lead to the birth of new organizations that become responsible for new

products and markets, it does not necessarily imply the creation of an NB or corporate

renewal (Sharma and Chrisman, 1999).

Furthermore, according to Sharma and Chrisman (1999) corporate renewal can be defined as

changes to an organizational structure, business or the corporate strategy, that are the result of

entrepreneurial efforts. These changes imply changes in existing relationships within the

organization or between the organization and its external environment. Innovation is in most

cases related to corporate renewal, because it can lead to alteration of the organizational

strategy or business model. However, it can also be the other way around; the organization

can adjust its structure to create more innovation in its business. This form of corporate

renewal can be defined as reorganization (Zahra, 1993). Especially, reorganizations that result

in organic structures can trigger CE (Covin and Slevin, 1989). System-wide organizational

change is also a form of corporate renewal; it can enhance creative problem solving and

organizational learning. This can increase the entity’s ability to recognize threats and

opportunities and respond to them creatively (Zahra, 1993).

Finally, the last type of CE in this discussion is corporate venturing. According to Sharma and

Chrisman (1999), corporate venturing means the creation of new organizations within the

existing corporate organization, that are the result of entrepreneurial efforts. Furthermore, new

product development and/or exploiting new markets through innovations can lead to the

creation of new organizations, or be a result of these new organizations. It is not necessary

that these venturing efforts lead to new organizations that are distinct from the existing

corporate organizations, or that they reside within the domain of the existing organization

(Von Hippel, 1977). Therefore, Sharma and Chrisman (1999) stated that there are two forms

of corporate venturing, namely, internal and external. External corporate venturing refers to

the creation of new organizations that can be classified as semi-autonomous or autonomous.

They are outside the existing organizational domain or boundaries (e.g. joint ventures, venture

capital initiatives and spinoffs) (Sharma and Chrisman, 1999). Internal corporate venturing

refers to the creation of new organizations by existing organizations. In addition, the extent of

structural autonomy determines the position of the new organization. “The options vary from


totally embedding the venture within the ongoing operations of an existing division to

creating a separate new-venture division isolated from the rest of the organization and

reporting directly to top management (Block & MacMillan, 1993; Kanter, Richardson, North,

& Morgan. 1991)” (Sharma and Chrisman, 1999, p. 22). This study will focus on internal

corporate venturing since the internal organizational environment has the most influence on

this type of CE. Additionally, these different types of CE are also answers to the earlier stated

‘what’ of Stevenson and Jarillo (1990). The next step in this theoretical framework is to give

an answer to the ‘why’, the causes for CE.

2.2 Entrepreneurial strategy

Entrepreneurial behavior can be stimulated by the strategy of an entity since strategies

can enhance a certain culture and behavior, and direct them towards preferred outcomes. The

same holds for entrepreneurial behavior. Ireland et al. (2009) conceptualized corporate

entrepreneurial strategy based on a literature review. Burgelman et al. (1983) stated that

corporate strategy can be extended to accommodate NB activity, which is a part of internal

corporate business venturing. Later on, Guth and Ginsberg (1990) indicated that strategy

directly affects the entrepreneurial phenomena corporate venturing and corporate renewal.

Furthermore, Kuratko et al. (2004) found in their study that individual-level entrepreneurial

behavior is indirectly affected by strategy. However, they also found the reverse; individual-

level entrepreneurial behavior also affects strategy indirectly. Both of these behaviors are

recognized as autonomous strategic behavior (Burgelman, 1983) Finally, Covin and Slevin

(1991) did research in the CE domain with their study into entrepreneurial orientation.

Entrepreneurial orientation characterizes how the entrepreneurial outcomes are undertaken

(Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). They stated that organizational behavior is entrepreneurial-oriented

if it reflects pro-activeness, risk-taking and innovativeness. Yet, this concept is adapted from

the strategy-making process literature (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996), and therefore if the strategy

reflects these three characteristics, it can be seen as a entrepreneurial-oriented strategy.

Summarizing, the entrepreneurial orientation construct can be seen both as behavior and as

strategy.

From a strategic point of view, there are a lot of causes for entrepreneurial behavior, as

mentioned above. In addition, Ireland et al. (2009) stated the PEOA is the configuration

between the organizational-entrepreneurial vision (strategy as perspective) and

entrepreneurial behavior (strategy as pattern). In addition, the absence of an entrepreneurial

strategic vision can lead to inconsistency in the PEOA and therefore inconsistent


entrepreneurial behavior and vice versa (Morris and Kuratko, 2002; Murzyka et al., 1995).

Therefore, both the entrepreneurial vision and the PEOA are important for entrepreneurial

behavior. In this study the focus will be on the PEOA, because the aim of this study is to

determine which factors are important for the PEOA. Therefore, the last part of this

theoretical framework will focus on a literature review regarding those factors.

2.3 The literature review

In order to describe the factors determining the PEOA, the method of literature review

is applied and approached in the following way. The strategy is to search in databases such as

Web of Science, Scopus and Scholar. Search terms as ‘corporate entrepreneurship’,

‘innovation’ and ‘new business creation' were combined with ‘factors’ and ‘aspects’ to find

articles. The structured method in figure 1 was used to eliminate unusable articles and find the

articles needed for performing the literature study. This strategy resulted in nine factors:

management support, work discretion, time orientation, organic structure, administrative

mechanisms, financial and non- financial rewards, availability of resource, networking, and

strategic legitimation.

Figure 1. Literature research method.

2.4 The structure of the literature review: a pro-entrepreneurship organizational

architecture

The CE literature regarding internal organizational factors which are related to CE is

extensive. As stated earlier the factors roam in literature and therefore the above mentioned

strategy resulted in a lot of articles about different factors. The aim of this study is to find

factors which can determine the PEOA. Therefore, the building blocks of the PEOA are used

to structure this literature review and to find factors which will fit the PEOA. More studies


have used building blocks to determine an entrepreneurially intensive organizational

environment: Covin and Slevin (1991) argued; for example that organizational structure,

culture and resources are important internal variables for CE. To introduce the structure of

this literature review, the PEOA will be explained. The PEOA is an organizational context or

internal environment that consists of certain attributes that individually and collectively

encourage entrepreneurial behavior. This architecture integrates ‘hardware’ elements (e.g.

organizational structure) and ‘software’ elements (e.g. organizational culture) (Covin &

Slevin, 2002, Ireland et al, 2009). Therefore, the PEOA can be defined by an organization’s

structure, culture, resources and reward systems (Ireland et al., 2009). Moreover, Hornsby et

al. (2002) argued that their CEAI can be used to gain insight in the PEOA and thus, some

factors will likely be included in this literature review. Although the factors included in the

CEAI could together form a culture which can intensify CE, this study will match the

included factors with the introduced building blocks of the PEOA, which is in line with

Ireland et al. (2009).

A lot of scholars link factors to entrepreneurial ideas, activities and/or behavior, which are

different outcomes. For example, the CEAI of Hornsby et al. (2002) is developed in relation

to the number of ideas submitted. Therefore, in order to further systemize this analysis, this

study will wield a corporate entrepreneurial process perspective. The CE process includes

different outcomes such as CE ideas, activities, and behavior (Covin and Slevin, 1991;

Lumpkin, 2005). According to Shane and Venketaraman (2000) the CE process consists of

three layers, namely discovery, evaluation and exploitation. Discovery can be explained as

identifying opportunities and generating ideas. Next to this, development, project definition

and defining business concepts can be classified as evaluation. Exploitation can be interpreted

as implementing and managing the project. Obviously, there are more conceptualizations of a

CE process, however, this conceptualization is acknowledged in CE literature (Belousova and

Gailly, 2013). In addition, it is simple and clearly defined which facilitates this study to link

factors to the process. In conclusion, it is not the goal of this study to research which factors

are the most effective or the most needed in which stage of the process. Instead, it will

systemize the analysis of factors in this study in their relation to different output (e.g. ideas,

behavior, and activities). Therefore, this study aims to provide an analysis of factors which

positively influence corporate entrepreneurial ideas, behavior and activities and therefore

corporate entrepreneurial processes.


2.5 The factors determining a pro-entrepreneurship organizational architecture

Organizational culture-related factors. Organizational culture, or corporate culture, is

abstract, difficult to understand, and can be reflected in different dimensions of the

organization. Therefore, it is important to define what corporate culture is. On group level,

corporate culture can be expressed by the way a group deals with problems of external

adaption and internal integration. It is visible in the ways they invented, discovered or

developed learning patterns or basic assumptions which worked well enough to be considered

valid, and therefore were taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel

in relation to those problems (Schein, 1984). Furthermore, a corporate culture is manifested in

the ethical standards, values, business principles, problem solving, personnel management,

official policies and procedures, in the work spirit, work environment, the interaction between

managers and employees, core values, traditions and stories, and in the relationships with

external stakeholders (Schein, 1984, 1996). More specifically, Fayolle, Basso, and Bouchard

(2010) argued that an entrepreneurial culture can be defined through different factors (e.g.

management support, and work discretion/ autonomy) that are part of results of the corporate

culture. In addition, organizational culture related factors can be important for the occurrence

of entrepreneurial behavior and activities (Burgelman and Sayles, 1986, Cornwall and

Perlman, 1990; Covin and Slevin, 1988, 1991; Zahra 1991; and Ireland et al., 2009).

According to Hornsby et al. (2002, p. 253) management support is “The willingness of senior

management to facilitate and promote entrepreneurial activity in the organization, including

championing innovative ideas as well as providing necessary resources, expertise or

protection” and is strongly related to corporate entrepreneurial activities. Besides, work

discretion/autonomy is also related to entrepreneurial activities and can be explained as the

extent to which one perceives that top-level managers tolerate failure, provide decision-

making freedom, and freedom from extreme supervision and delegate authority and

responsibility (Hornsby et al, 2002). Next to this, time orientation (e.g. long-term/ short-term)

is a possible cultural factor which is under-researched in this domain. However, Zahra (1996)

found in a study of organizations among the Fortune 500 that short-term orientation (e.g.

focus on financial controls) is negatively related to corporate entrepreneurial activities and

that long-term orientation (e.g. focus on strategic controls) is positively related to

entrepreneurial activities. This indicates that an organizational culture will be entrepreneurial

supportive if it stimulates ‘long-term’ time orientation. Given these arguments along with

prior research, this study hypothesizes:


Hypothesis 1. A supportive management positively influences the CE process.

Hypothesis 2. Work discretion/autonomy positively influences the CE process.

Hypothesis 3. Long-term time orientation positively influences the CE process.

Structure-related factors. In order to find structure-related factors, a definition of the

organizational structure is inevitable. In the corporate entrepreneurial literature, scholars often

operationally define organizational structure in terms of formalization and decentralization, in

order to indicate whether a firms structure is mechanistic or organic (Khandwalla, 1977;

Covin and Slevin, 1991). A mechanistic structure, characterized by formalization,

centralization, bureaucratic values and a lot of hierarchy is often associated with impediment

of CE (Khandwalla, 1977; Schollhammer, 1982; and Covin and Slevin, 1988). Accordingly,

literature emphasized the positive role organic structure has for CE (Burgelman & Sayles,

1986; Drucker, 1985; and Pinchot, 1985). This is because such structures often have greater

information processing competences, which are required by successful innovations (Burns

and Stalker, 1961). In addition, Birkinshaw (1997) connected an organic structure with

dispersed CE, which means that every individual acts entrepreneurial, rather than collectively

establishing a new organization to obtain entrepreneurial outcomes. In earlier research, this

positive role of organic structure was also empirically tested by Covin and Slevin (1988).

They researched the relation and moderating role between organizational structure, strategic

orientation and financial performance. Based on Khandwalla’s (1977) measurement scale for

organic structures, the researchers found strong support that these structures promote

entrepreneurial activities. This positive relation can be explained by different characteristics

of the organic structure. For example, organizational structure which includes formality,

structural differentiation, decentralized-decision making and a flat hierarchy can be seen as

appropriate for CE (Burns and Stalker, 1961; and Covin and Slevin, 1991). Moreover, Zahra

(1991) found that formal communication, scanning and integration positively influenced

internal CE. These are tangible variables which are part of the formal structure (Zahra, 1991).

However, the literature is not unanimous about the influence of decentralization and

formalization on corporate entrepreneurial activities (Zahra, 1993; Foss, Lyngsie, Zahra,

2014). An organic structure can indeed encourage fast dissimilation of internal corporate

venturing and similar ideas, which can be seen as entrepreneurial initiatives, yet it does not

guarantee the participation of different individuals or groups in this process (Zahra, 1993).

Furthermore, Foss et al. (2014) argued that decentralization can enhance entrepreneurial

opportunities in organization, but it can also lead to missed opportunities in synergy on


resource sharing, reduced inter-communication, knowledge sharing, and a lack of

coordination. According to Foss et al. (2014) this can lead to organizational conflicts and

resource competition and therefore, formalization is more appropriate for the realization of

these entrepreneurial opportunities. However, they did not find strong evidence for this last

hypothesis; they found that decentralization can stimulate entrepreneurial opportunities and

ideas, and formalization reinforces the realization of these ideas. This kind of formalization is

already studied in earlier research in terms of administrative mechanisms (Burns and Stalker,

1961; and Burgelman and Sayles, 1986). Moreover, Burgelman and Sayles (1986) noted the

importance of administrative mechanisms in ways of evaluating ideas, selecting ideas and the

implementation of these ideas. They connected administrative mechanisms with the strategy

decision making process, which results in a more coordinated and more formalized process of

evaluating, selecting and implementing entrepreneurial ideas. In the view of this literature and

research, this study hypothesizes that:

Hypothesis 4. Organic structure-related factors (e.g. informal, decentralized, flat hierarchy,

structural differentiated, formal communication, scanning and integration) positively

influence the CE process.

Hypothesis 5. Administrative mechanisms positively influence the CE process.

Reward systems. Literature has highlighted the importance of organizational structure-related

factors and organizational culture-related factors for the occurrence of corporate

entrepreneurial behavior; still, other scholars have argued for the supportive need of the

appropriate use of reward systems (Fry, 1987; Sathe, 1985; Block and Ornati, 1987; Souder,

1981; Kanter, 1985; Sykes, 1992; and Hornsby et al., 2002). Moreover, structure, culture and

the entrepreneurial project itself provide challenge, achievement, and independence, whereas

the financial incentives and non-financial incentives are a form of feedback (Block and

Ornati, 1987; Brazeal, 1996). Financial incentives can also be either successful or

unsuccessful. Therefore, Block and Ornati (1987), and Sykes (1992) promote the use of

‘milestone’ based rewards. This type of rewarding focusses on the acceptance of additional

risk by a corporate entrepreneur. An important advantage is that it aims for equality (Sykes,

1992) and therefore ‘ordinary’ employees and managers do not feel subordinated because

they do not run the additional risk. In addition, Brazeal (1996) found a positive relation

between financial rewards (measured by the original scale of Block and Ornati (1987)) and

the outcomes of entrepreneurs. This implies that financial rewards can stimulate

entrepreneurial activities. Aside from this, non-financial incentives are another important


characteristic of reward systems (Sykes, 1992; Hornby et al., 2002). According to Hornsby et

al. (2002) reward systems should include goals, emphasis on individual responsibility,

feedback, and results-based incentives and should as such also include recognition and

promotion. However, they did not find statistical evidence for this factor. Even though

Brazeal (1996) found in earlier research that non-financial incentives have a positive

influence on the performance of entrepreneurs, these non-financial incentives are

outperformed by financial incentives. Summarizing the literature, this study hypothesizes:

Hypothesis 6. A reward system which includes both financial incentives such as additional

risk rewards, and non-financial incentives such as recognition, promotion, positive feedback

and more responsibility positively influences the CE process.

Resources. The availability of resources is widely recognized as an important dimension that

must be perceived by employees in order to act entrepreneurial (Covin and Slevin, 1991;

Hornsby et al., 2002). This is because resources form the base for all actions in organizations

and therefore play a facilitating and limiting role for corporate entrepreneurial behavior

(Covin and Slevin, 1991; Hitt, Ireland, Camp, and Sexton, 2001). Furthermore, resources can

be defined in the broadest sense, including things such as financial resources, functional-level

capabilities (e.g., manufacturing flexibility), factory and equipment, organizational systems

(e.g., marketing research systems), and organizational-level capabilities (e.g. ability to get a

new product on the market quickly) (Covin and Slevin, 1991). In addition, knowledge is an

important intangible resource because knowledge and knowledge sharing can lead to

entrepreneurial ideas and thus to entrepreneurial activities (e.g. new technologies) (Hit et al.,

2001; De Clercq, Dimov, and Thongpapanl, 2013). In order to gain resources such as

knowledge, networking can be an important source for corporate entrepreneurs. Moreover,

“social networks allows acquisition of required information, knowledge and skills, access to

resources; includes also the ‘quality’ of people involved” (Belousova, 2002, p. 14). Although

the literature is sparse in providing relationships between intra-organizational networks and

CE, a few studies highlight the importance of networks to CE (Dougherty and Hardy, 1996;

Leifer et al., 2000; Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005; and Kelley, Peters and, O’Connor,

2009). Kelley et al. (2009) argued that sharing resources and knowledge can also lead to

forming of ideas due to creativity. In addition, for the creation of networks relevant to CE,

two characteristics are important; human capital and social capital. Human capital refers to

the knowledge, creativity, expertise in roles and functions and skills of employees in the

organization (Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005) and is a major source for new ideas in


organizations (Snell and Dean, 1992). Social capital refers to the transferability and

transforming of knowledge by employees in the organizations (Subramaniam and Youndt,

2005). Subramaniam and Youndt (2005) also found that the interaction of both constructs is

positively related to radical innovative capability. Besides, networking, “the need for freedom

in terms of time” is often mentioned in interviews as an important resource for employees to

act entrepreneurial (Marvel, Griffin, Hebda, Vojak, 2007, p. 761). This was empirically tested

by Hornsby et al. (2002) earlier and they found a positive relationship between resources

(including time) and entrepreneurial activities. Consistent with the literature, this study

hypothesizes:

Hypothesis 7. The availability of time, financial resources, and knowledge are important

resources and positively influence the CE process.

Hypothesis 8. Networking positively influences the CE process because it can increase the

possibilities to acquire the resources needed.

Strategic legitimation. The literature is sparse regarding strategic legitimation and its link with

CE. However, Bouchard highlighted the importance of it.

According to Bouchard (2001), strategic legitimation of the CE process can approve or

disapprove the process and therefore impede or stimulate other factors such as resources.

Furthermore, in organizations often a tradeoff has to be made by the corporate management

between exploration and exploitation (March, 1991; Bouchard, 2001). So, when the corporate

management has a focus on exploration, corporate entrepreneurial processes have more

chance to receive strategic legitimation (Bouchard, 2001). Although the PEOA according to

Ireland et al. (2009) does not contain strategic legitimation, it is important for the

development of the CE process. Collectively, the aforementioned literature supports the

following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 9. Strategic legitimation of the CE process positively influences the process and

the distribution of resources to the project.

2.6 The conceptual model

In this extensive analysis of factors, the measuring factors of the CEAI as indicated by

Hornsby et al. (2002) are integrated. Based on their 2002 and 2013 studies, management

support (H1), work discretion/autonomy (H2), reward system (H6), and the availability of

resources (H7) are integrated in this analysis. These factors are closely analyzed and based on


Hornsby et al. (2013) some factors are slightly adjusted. Additionally, the factor

organizational boundaries is not included in this analysis of factors because Hornsby et al.

(2013) deleted this factor from their initial CEAI method since it did not meet the structural

and content validity requirements. Resulting from their validity measurement, two items of

this factor remained. However, these items are in contrast with one item from the organic

structure (e.g. informality). Therefore in this study, the organic structure related items replace

the organizational boundary factor. Another important reason for this choice is that organic

structure related factors are positively related to corporate entrepreneurial behavior and

organizational boundaries can be recognized as obstacles for entrepreneurial behavior

(Hornsby et al., 2002). In terms of the PEOA, organic structure- related factors fit better in

this logic than organizational boundaries. Furthermore, a few additional factors resulting from

the literature review are integrated in this conceptual model; long-term orientation (H3),

organic structure (H4) with flexible administrative mechanisms (H5), networking (H8) which

is combined with resources, and strategic legitimation (H9). All in all, the abovementioned

factors include culture-related factors, structure-related factors, reward systems, the

availability of resources, and an added factor, namely strategic legitimation. According to the

literature these factors can be considered a renewed group of factors, which can be

determinants for the PEOA necessary to facilitate a corporate entrepreneurial strategy (Ireland

et al., 2009). Moreover, based on Hornsby et al. (2002) and the analysis provided in this

study, a conceptual model is designed. The factors included in these analyses positively

influence the CE process. According to Hornsby et al. (2002) “Understanding middle

manager perceptions about the internal corporate environment is crucial to initiating and

nurturing any entrepreneurial process” (p. 254). Therefore, the perception of the middle

managers is also included in the conceptual framework since it can influence the behavior of

the middle manager, and behavior is integrated in the definition of the CE process. Finally,

short supporting descriptions of the included factors in the conceptual model are provided

below:

Management support (H1)

The willingness of senior management to facilitate and promote entrepreneurial activity in the

organization, including championing innovative ideas, providing necessary resources,

expertise or protection and supporting risk taking and creativity.


Work discretion/ autonomy (H2)

The delegation of authority and responsibility, provide decision-making freedom and freedom

from extreme supervision and the willingness of top-level managers to tolerate failure.

Long-term orientation (H3)

The focus of the organization and top management on long term goals (e.g. focus on strategic

controls).

Organic structure (H4) with flexible administrative mechanisms (H5)

A structure which consists of informality, decentralization, flat hierarchy, structural

differentiation, formal communication, scanning and integration. In combination with flexible

administrative mechanisms for evaluating, selecting and implementing ideas.

Reward system (H6)

The incentive structure which includes financial incentives such as additional risk rewards

and non-financial incentives such as recognition, promotion, positive feedback, and more

responsibility

Availability of resources (H7)

The availability of time, financial resources, knowledge, and knowledge-sharing, as well as

resources in the broadest sense, needed for any project.

Networking (H8)

Social networks allowing acquisition of required information, knowledge and skills, access to

resources; includes the ‘quality’ of people involved as well. Further, networks should consist

of human capital and social capital.

Strategic legitimation (H9)

The approval for corporate entrepreneurial processes depending on the strategy, and

management choices.


Figure 1. Conceptual model based on the literature review.


3. Methodology

This chapter describes which methods and techniques are used to find out which

factors determine the PEOA. The study is done in two phases, the identification phase

(section 3.1) and the assessment phase (section 3.2). The identification phase allows selecting

organizations for the case studies executed in the assessment phase. Both phases are

performed at NPAL which was previously introduced. NPAL has a CEO platform in which

forty organizations participate. NPAL would like to know the corporate entrepreneurial

intensity of the participating organizations, in order to discuss their own performance. This

study also needs to identify corporate entrepreneurial organizations for the dependent

variable, and organizations which are less corporate entrepreneurial, for comparison. The case

studies are used to assess the conceptual framework which is presented in chapter 2. The

conceptual framework consists of internal factors which can influence the CE process.

3.1 The identification phase

In this phase, the dependent variable is the central topic. First of all, it is important that

the researcher gets familiar with the subject, CE, which is covered by the first sub-question:

‘What is corporate entrepreneurship?’ For this question, a few fundamental articles are read

regarding this topic and the research streams in this domain are revealed with the help of

citation research. The second step is to identify which organizations can be used for the

dependent variable to answer sub-question 3. In order to do this, there are four cases selected

with high (two cases) and low (two cases) entrepreneurialness. Here, the participating

organizations of NPAL are surveyed and four different organizations with different profiles

are selected. The survey used for this phase of the study can be found in appendix I.

3.1.1 Measurement construct, data analysis and reliability analysis

In order to identify the entrepreneurialness of the participating organizations, their

strategy was assessed using the entrepreneurial orientation (EO) construct. For both constructs

a five point Likert scale is used where 1 means ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 means ‘strongly

agree’. EO was measured using the scale of Covin and Slevin, (1986) reflecting pro-

activeness, innovation and risk-taking in a nine-item scale. For the EO construct, only risk-

taking meets an acceptable Cronbach’s alpha of .816. The Cronbach’s alpha of pro-activeness

(.693) is barely lower than .7, and innovativeness (-.641) is severely lower than .7. The reason

for this low Cronbach’s alpha is that the data within the innovativeness construct is

contradicting and thus the questions do not consequently measure this construct. However, a


possible explanation for this poor score could be the low response rate in the small sample. In

addition, the total Cronbach’s alpha of the EO construct is .589 which is questionable.

Considering the EO’s Cronbach’s alpha; these results have to be interpreted with caution.

Still, the EO scale typically has high construct validity and in earlier research in the

Netherlands it featured a valid score of .806 (Kemelgor, 2002). In addition, the answers of the

EO items of the entrepreneurial organizations in this study are consistent, which makes the

identification of the different cases more reliable.

3.1.2 Data collection

The questionnaire that was sent out to all participating organizations was pre-tested by

6 middle managers to check whether they interpreted the questions right and understood the

questionnaire. Out of the 40 participating organizations, 22 CEOs returned the questionnaire,

resulting in a response rate of 55%. From those 22 organizations, 82% can be classified as

manufacturing organizations. Out of the returned questionnaires, four organizations are

selected for the cases in assessment phase. The organizations are selected based on their

scores. In this study medium to high scores on EO are classified as >3.5, and low scores on

EO are classified as <3.5 (Smart and Conant, 2011). Purposively, a choice was made to

ensure a difference in entrepreneurialness between the two groups of organizations, because

logically, this would enhance the differences in the studied factors between the organizations.

This should help to interpret and understand the influences of factors on the CE process.

Therefore, two organizations are selected with a score higher than 3.5 and two organizations

are selected with a score lower than 3.5, which resulted in the following cases.

Table 1. EO mean scores of the four cases.

TechnoServCo ErgoCo BuilderCo LightCo

Mean EO 4.22 3.89 2.44 3.33

According to table 1, TechnoServCo and ErgoCo are indicated as entrepreneurial because

these organizations fall into the category “medium to high scores on EO” while BuilderCo

and LightCo are indicated as non-entrepreneurial because these organizations fall into the

category “low scores on EO” based on the analysis.


3.2 The assessment phase

In this phase of the study the factors of the conceptual framework are assessed with

reference to the case studies. The results of this assessment answer sub-question 3. Next to

this, the factors included in the theoretical framework are backed up by sub-question 2. These

factors are the independent variables for this study. Details on the literature review can be

found in section 2.4.

3.2.1 Sample selection

After the selection of the four cases, the middle managers are selected based on the

projects in which they participate or have participated. Since all four cases represent

manufacturing organizations, the generalizability of this study to the manufacturing industry

will be enhanced. For each company, two projects were selected based on theoretical

sampling. Theoretical sampling assumes that selection will be done based on criteria derived

from the literature in order to start the sample where the phenomenon occurs. (Glaser &

Strauss, 1967; Coyne 1997). The criteria for an entrepreneurial project are as follows: projects

which lead to new products or technologies which can create new markets or are totally new

for a known market. The other project has to be a ‘usual’ project (e.g. incremental product

innovation for known markets). The criteria are based on the definition of CE in chapter 2. In

addition, it could be the case that one of the organizations does not have any corporate

entrepreneurial projects, then corporate entrepreneurial ideas or initiatives or a usual project

will form the basis of the interviews. In that case it is important to question which factors

work obstructive for corporate entrepreneurial projects or ideas.

3.2.2 Data collection

The data is collected on the basis of two projects as described in section 3.2.1. This is

done because the researcher wants to study whether the extent of the factors varies between

‘usual’ projects and CE projects in different cases. In the end, a total of 18 middle managers

for four cases were selected for the interviews and the questionnaires. These managers have

an average work experience of 10.32 years in the organization, so this implies that they know

their organization very well and that increases the reliability of their answers. In table 2 the

description of the data collection is presented.


Table 2. Description data collection.

Cases Managers interviewed Duration of the interviews

TechnoServiceCo

Sales manager

HR manager

Account manager

CEO

42 min.

37 min.

47 min.

20 min.

BuilderCo

Business developer

Account manager

Marketing manager

Account manager

40 min.

20 min.

42 min.

22 min.

ErgoCo

Marketing specialist

Production manager

R&D manager

Q&A manager

CEO/ sales

28 min.

41 min.

60 min.

35 min.

31 min.

LightCo

CI engineer

Supply Chain manager

Procurement engineer

Product manager

Production manager

36 min.

51 min.

47 min.

42 min.

23 min.

In this study both qualitative and quantitative data collections are used because triangulation

will provide more insights than quantitative research alone, and will increase the internal

reliability of this study (Maso and Smaling, 1998). Moreover, qualitative research, and

especially case studies are often used to learn about the different relationships between factors

(Lant and Mezias, 1990). On day was planned in between the data collection and the data

analysis of the different cases. This was done to improve the quality of the data analysis

(Babbie, 2012). The four cases including the two projects will be briefly described below.


3.2.3 Case description

In table 3 the cases are described to give information about the content of the

organizations and the projects observed.

Table 3. Case description.

Case Description

TechServCo

Case 1 is about a manufacturing organization that delivers services to the

business-to-business market. The organization counts 350 employees of which

4 are interviewed. In this organization, the following two projects are

analyzed. The CE project is about an NB workgroup where industrial

automation will be integrated in the total service perspective of the

organization, which is new to the market and to the organization. The other

project is about the development of an integrative approach of the

organizational services without an NB perspective.

ErgoCo

Case 2 is about a manufacturing organization that delivers products to the

medical and sports industry. This organization counts 35 employees of which

4 are interviewed. In this organization the following two projects are analyzed.

The CE project is about a product which was radically innovated and

modularly offered to the market. This product in a modular form is new to the

market and new to the organization. The ‘usual’ project was an incremental

innovation to a product, in other words, a known technology for a known

market.

BuilderCo

Case 3 is about a manufacturing organization that delivers products in the

construction market. The organization counts 160 employees of which 4 are

interviewed. In this organization, the following two projects are analyzed. The

first project is about product innovations for a known market. Since it is

neither new for the market nor for the company, it does not meet the criteria

fully, which makes this project not completely corporate entrepreneurial but it

fits in the classification of a grey area. The other project can be classified as a

‘usual’ project since it is about known products for a known market, except

they changed the ‘sales’ distribution of the products.


LightCo

Case 4 is about a manufacturing organization that delivers products to

organizations in the vertical chain. The organization counts 155 employees of

which five are interviewed. In this organization, two projects are analyzed.

The CE project is about a product/technology characterized as technology

push. It is new to the organization, and to the unknown market. The ‘usual’

project is about an incremental innovation to a product for a known market.

3.2.4 Measurement constructs and reliability analysis

The interviews are semi-structured since this study aims to research which factors are

presented in the internal environment. The interviews started with open questions about the

project to further identify whether the project met the criteria. Examples of other open

questions were: “Which 3 factors in the internal environment stimulated the development of

your project?”; “Which 3 factors in the internal environment obstruct the development of

your project?”. If the middle managers had difficulty naming the factors, more structured

questions were asked. Examples of these questions were: “Management support is recognized

in the literature as important for corporate entrepreneurship, how do you perceive this in

your organization?”. In this format, all the factors of the conceptual framework were

discussed. Furthermore, the total interview protocol can be found in appendix II. Whereas the

results of the interviews may provide examples of the case studies which can imply possible

differences between the cases, the results of questionnaires may confirm possible differences.

This means to answer sub-question 3: “How does the perception of the pro-entrepreneurship

organizational architecture vary across companies and why?”. The questionnaire consists of

nine measurement constructs. Most of the constructs are existing constructs from the literature

which can be seen in table 4. However, even though the factor rewards systems is part of the

CEAI of Hornsby et al. (2002), financial rewards are not explicitly measured with this

construct. Furthermore, ‘administrative systems’ is not an existing construct. Therefore,

applicable constructs were developed for these two factors, based on the literature, and were

added by the researcher. The questionnaire can be found in appendix III. The results of the

reliability analysis can be found in appendix IV. Work discretion/autonomy (.641), resources

(.657), and time orientation (short-term (.621) and long-term (.568)) were the only factors that

did not meet the acceptable Cronbach’s alpha level of .7. This is probably the result of the

small sample (n=18), therefore the data analysis should be interpreted with caution.


Table 4. The measurement constructs.

Measurement

construct:

Author: Number of

items

Likert scale:

Management support, work

discretion/autonomy, rewards,

resources (one item was added

by researcher)

Kuratko et al. (1990)

Hornsby et al. (2002)

40 (19, 9, 5, 7) 5 point Likert scale

(1 strongly disagree, 5

strongly agree)

Networking Subramaniam and Youndt

(2005)

9 7 point Likert scale

(1 entirely disagree, 7

entirely agree)

Structure; organicity Khandwalla (1977) 7 7 point Likert scale

(1 entirely disagree, 7

entirely agree)

Time orientation Zahra (1996) 7 5 point Likert scale (1

strongly disagree, 5

strongly agree)

Financial rewards (added by

researcher)

Block and Ornati (1987) 3 5 point Likert scale (1


strongly agree)

Administrative systems (added

by researcher)

Burgelman and Sayles (1986) 2 5 point Likert scale (1


strongly agree)

3.2.5 Data analysis

In order to analyze the qualitative data, the interviews were recorded and transcribed

the day after. The mother tongue of the middle managers involved is Dutch and therefore the

interviews were conducted in that language. The analysis of the verbatim transcriptions were

done in Dutch, since the researcher’s mother tongue is Dutch as well, hence only the essential

parts of the interviews were translated into English. Concerning the analysis, a codebook was

developed based on deductive codes. In this study a deductive analysis was selected because

the conceptual framework is the starting point of our analysis and the aim is to test whether it

is representative for the practice (Maso and Smaling, 1998). Therefore, selective coding is

used to structure the data in characteristics fitting with conceptual framework (Garud and

Rappam, 1994). Based on these codes, the verbatim transcription is read and examples,


incidents, systems and processes are matched with the codes. The operationalization of these

codes can be found in appendix V. Aside from this, inductive coding is used for additional

factors or factors which influence the CE process but did not match the deductive codes. This

approach is used for each interview, whereas quotes from different middle managers are

indicated with a number. This has resulted in four codebooks one for each case which can be

found in appendix VI.

Hereafter, the selected data is analyzed using analytic techniques, including explanation

building, cross-case synthesis and pattern matching (Yin, 2014). These techniques are covered

in two kinds of data analysis: within-case analysis and cross-case pattern analysis (Eisenhardt,

1989). In this study, the ‘coded’ factors are always present at organizations, however the

extent to which a factor is present is important for the CE process and will differ across cases.

At first, within-case analysis is performed based on a table which represents how a certain

factor occurs at an organization. In order to explain the degree of a certain factor, experienced

by middle managers, explanation building is used by means of examples and incidents. The

extent to which a factor is experienced is important to explain whether a factor obstructs or

stimulates the CE process.

Once the factors are indicated in the cases, cross-case pattern analysis is performed to find

differences between the four cases. To start, tables of the four cases are made per factor to

compare whether a factor obstructs or stimulates the CE process and to score to what extent a

factor is present at each case. Based on these tables, the differences between the cases are

analyzed, and thus it is indicated which factors are stimulating the CE process. Additionally,

patterns between factors are indicated based on the relationships between them. Finally, the

indicated factors and patterns are matched with the theory leading to conclusions.

To enhance the differences between the cases, quantitative data is also used and integrated

with the cross-case pattern analysis. The quantitative data is analyzed using SPSS and in order

to find differences between the four cases, the means are compared. Unfortunately, statistical

T-tests are not desirable since the cases include a maximum of 5 individuals. In the cross-case

pattern analysis, the means are given. All total quantitative results including standard

deviations can be found in appendix VII.


4. Results

In this chapter, the results of this study are presented. The empirical data is collected

and analyzed based as described in the previous chapters. To structure the analysis, every case

is described in the within-case analysis (section 4.1). On the basis of these within-case

analyses, a cross-case analysis (section 4.2) is used to describe differences across cases. In

this section, the quantitative results are integrated. Additionally, possible patterns between the

factors are described (section 4.3). Finally, the obstructing or stimulating influence of factors

to the CE process is described (section 4.4) and a summary of the most important results is

given (section 4.5).

4.1 Within-case analysis

4.1.1 TechServCo

In this organization, the existence of culture-related factors is widely perceived by the

middle management. The four middle managers, participating separately, perceived a lot of

management support in both projects. The management team encourages employees to come

up with new ideas or initiatives about NB. This is reflected in a few workgroups which are

named industrial automation (IA) and predictive maintenance (PM), organized by the

management team. These topics are potential NB for the organization services and the

workgroups were created to gain more knowledge and ideas about the potential NB.

Therefore the employees get a lot of support in terms of time to spend on this work group

every week. “The management facilitates ideas, projects or NB with time and money. We

have some workgroups IA and predictive maintenance and the employees involved get 6 to 8

hours per week and an amount of money to develop these NB.”.

Aside this, time orientation is perceived as long-term oriented by all interviewed middle

managers. A lot of working hours are invested in multiple workgroups (e.g. industrial

automation) and discipline groups. These groups are investments for the long run and can

result in new ideas and NB for the organization. Of course there is always a tension between

profit on the short-term and investment for NB on the long-term but the focus is mostly on the

latter. “There is always a small balance between profit on the short-term and investment on

the long-term; however in this field of tension we focus on the long-term. That is the main

thread; sometimes we focus on short-term to end a year with profit, but that does not obstruct

the long-term.”


Another stimulating aspect as perceived by the middle managers is work discretion/

autonomy. To a large extent the middle managers argue that freedom and autonomy stimulate

projects when the management does not prescribe how employees have to do their job. “The

freedom and autonomy I perceive stimulates me to work on the project. I do not have to wait

for others, I can just go. I do not like working in a restricted project, so this stimulates me a

lot.” Moreover, fully-prescribed job descriptions are not present at this organization. That

means they work in free roles to stimulate different thoughts about a knowledge question,

which may result in new ideas and better quality solutions. “We do not have certain job

descriptions but we work more in roles. That gives you the opportunity to get a broader

perspective.”. The structure-related factors perceived by the middle managers indicate an

open, informal, and flat structure which they acknowledge as organic. This results in fast

communication, feedback and cross-fertilization of knowledge. According to the middle

managers, this is an important advantage because it leads to increasing knowledge-sharing,

idea initiatives, and therefore entrepreneurship. “Our structure is very flat and we work

across different areas, in fact we work where work is. It seems fuzzy, but that is not true, it

stimulates cross-fertilization and that stimulates the velocity of projects.”. “The loose

structure also stimulates entrepreneurship.”. This organic structure is also reflected in the

administrative mechanisms of the organization, because there seems to be no system in place

to evaluate and select ideas. Furthermore, if an idea is developed into a project, it depends on

the manager if this process is structured. However, the last years they have structured the

organization a bit more with new managers, commands to structure projects, and a

management program, all of which have also resulted in a more structured way of developing

NB. According to the managers this does not impede the velocity of the NB workgroups. “It

depends on our manager whether a project is very structured and that can work obstructive,

on the other hand, our leadership program stimulates the use of milestones in projects.”. “We

try to prioritize the ideas and initiatives now and that helps a lot. We do that every time

through considering our mission, vision, and strategy, and use these as criteria.”.

In this organization, there is no additional financial compensation for projects. “We have a

normal salary structure, but no additional rewards; because we believe that intrinsic

motivation is important.”. Moreover, they receive non-financial rewards in terms of

compliments, more responsibilities, and team trips. Middle managers perceive that the

availability of resources is present to a large extent and agree that enough money and time is

available for every workgroup; the same is true for the amount of other needed resources.


“Our workgroups receive a certain amount of money to develop NB e.g. IA or PM.”

Employees get time for NB in the work groups and in discipline groups they have time to think

about their own ideas and disciplines.” Furthermore, the middle managers experienced a

large extent of possibilities to network with other employees in the organization. The barriers

to get knowledge from other disciplines are low and are encouraged by the management team.

Furthermore, there are sessions organized in which e.g. business administration employees

present what they have done for clients, in order to learn from each other. “Networking is

easy when you need knowledge, because there are no barriers. Furthermore, there are

interdisciplinary projects which stimulate networking and we have master classes for our

people, alumni and some clients. In addition we also have disciplinary workgroups to

stimulate networking.”.

Strategic legitimation for projects mostly depends on the alignment between projects and the

strategy of the organization. The strategy of this organization is broad in that perspective

because they want to offer solutions to organizations in order to increase their competitive

advantage. Therefore a lot of NB projects get strategic legitimation. Two middle managers

argue that TechServCo uses the blue ocean strategy; they try to create a new market and stay

away from the competition. So in that perspective a lot of NB ideas get strategic legitimation.

Moreover, strategic legitimation is usually not dependent on the time orientation of the

project; however, projects with a long-term orientation are better supported. “NB will get

strategic legitimation if it is in line with our core business, predictive maintenance for

example. That does not mean that it is not new for us, but the approach is the same.”. “The

strategic legitimation is not dependent on the time-orientation, however long-term is more

stimulated.”.

Table 5. Case 1 TechServCo.

Factor How is the factor experienced in the organization? Score*

Management

support

The middle managers perceive facilitating leadership where

ideas and projects are stimulated with time and money. There

are NB workgroups in which employees can invest 6 to 8 hours

a week.

3


Long-term

orientation

The middle managers experience a focus on long-term

orientation since time and money is invested in NB workgroups

to develop products (services) for the future, which can be new

to the market.

3

Work discretion/

autonomy

In this organization the middle managers perceive to work in

roles rather than within extensively described job descriptions.

They perceive a lot of freedom and do not get punished if

mistakes are made.

3

Organic

structure

The middle managers perceive the structure as flat, loose,

informal, and open. They can work across areas and

disciplines.

3

Administrative

mechanisms

There is no system for the selection, evaluation, and

implementation of ideas. Even if a project is started, it depends

on the manager whether it is structured. Recently a leadership

program has been set up to better structure the evaluation and

the project itself.

1

Financial

rewards

There are no additional financial rewards for projects.

1

Non-financial

Rewards

The middle managers perceive non- financial rewards in terms

of compliments, more responsibilities, and team trips.

3


Resources (time) The middle managers experience enough resources including

time, money and human resources. There is time and money

reserved to work on NB workgroups. Capacity problems are

partially solved with new employees.

3

Resources

(networking)

The middle managers perceive, to a large extent that they can

network within the organization. Networking is even promoted

because employees of different disciplines are built around

knowledge questions to share knowledge and different

perspectives.

3

Strategic

legitimation

The middle managers perceive strategic legitimation for long-

term projects and NB business projects. However, the strategic

legitimation does not depend on time orientation.

3

* The score is based on the qualitative research. (3) Indicates factor is present to a large extent, (2) indicates

factor is present to moderate extent, and (1) indicates factor is present to a small extent.

Finally, the middle managers argued the importance of some additional factors. One middle

manager argued that promoting your NB project is very attractive, because then you get

employees involved who believe in that project rather than that they are randomly selected. “I

try to promote my own project by doing a little PR, to involve people in this project and to let

them see the usefulness of this project.”. “I tell our young business administration employees

in work meetings that I am looking for people for the IA project, and they are enthusiastic and

see the usefulness of this project.”. Furthermore, another middle manager mentioned that an

almost infeasible project with employees working on it throughout the organization on a

yearly basis will motivate the entire organization.

4.1.2 ErgoCo

The culture-related factors are widely perceived by the middle managers of ErgoCo.

The CEO is open and enthusiastic about new ideas, he takes input from others seriously, a

middle manager claimed. According to other middle managers, the CEO also stimulates new

ideas and technology push. “The CEO stimulates us to come up with creative ideas and these

ideas can be integrated into the roadmap.” Aside from this, the middle managers also


perceive a long-term time orientation in this organization. There is a good balance between

projects for the long run and short-term projects. One manager stated that the employees do

not stress out when a year closes with negative results. “There is a good balance between

long-term and short-term orientation, the owner of this organization has a long-term vision

and NPD’s are in line with that vision, therefore we invest time and money in that kind of

projects, which do not deliver fast money.”. However, recently some middle managers

experienced a little more focus on the short-term to increase financial results. “There has

always been a focus on the long-term, however recently this is shifted to the short-term.”.

“There is balance between the long-term and the short-term. In our roadmap we choose for

short-term project to earn money but we also work on long-term projects to have a sustaining

business.”. Furthermore, the middle managers perceive a large extent of work

discretion/autonomy. In general, there is a lot of freedom while working and middle managers

have their own responsibilities. Of course there are job descriptions and goals, but there is

freedom to decide what to do and how to do it. “I get a lot of freedom, I have my own

responsibilities and twice a week we discuss the situation, but I think that everyone can work

independently.”. “We have job descriptions and responsibilities, as well as a lot of freedom to

perform our tasks and do other things.”. Furthermore, mistakes can be made without getting

punished for it. “The CEO always asks what I think about a chance or a project; there is a lot

of space to make mistakes if I learn from it.” The above mentioned phrases imply a large

extent of work discretion.

The middle managers also perceive, to a large extent an organic structure, because the

structure of the organization is flat, decentralized, informal, and open. To illustrate this: “Our

organization is very flat, informal and that stimulates the development of the NPD project.”.

“The structure is also very open, financial facts are openly discussed and presented to the

employees.”. However, there are a lot of procedures since ErgoCo delivers to the medical

industry in which a lot of certifications are required. “There are a lot of procedures because

we deliver to the medical industry. Sometimes this works obstructive because it takes a lot of

time to test everything.”. Further, the middle managers perceive to a moderate extent

administrative mechanisms. According to the middle managers there is a digital idea system,

which acts like a safety-net for ideas. The CEO selects and evaluates the ideas. Although, the

intention of the organization is to structure the projects, but this does not always work out in

practice. “We try to structure our project but in reality it does not work that way because


sometimes we have to deliver faster. It is hard to maintain a rigid structure till the end of the

project”.

In this organization, rewards are experienced in different ways. To start, every year

employees receive an additional compensation in terms of profit sharing. However, this is not

related to milestones or additional risk in projects. “There is a yearly financial compensation

for the whole organization but not specified for projects or ideas.”. Additionally, the middle

managers perceive, to a large extent, non-financial rewards. Middle managers receive

compliments if their work was outstanding as well as recognition when they come with

something new. “If I come up with something new such as a product, I get recognition.”.

Next to this, the middle managers perceive the availability of time to a moderate extent. One

middle manager stated that the availability of time is sometimes problematic because

employees are very busy. For example, according to this manager the R&D department is

fully booked for the next two years. For some disciplines, only one employee is available,

which results in less time for NB projects, when daily problems occur. “For every discipline

there is one employee, so if there is a problem you have to make a choice and that will lead to

less time for NPD”. In contrast, other middle managers from the R&D department stated that

there is time available for NB projects because there is time reserved for it in the strategic

roadmap. “For NPD such as a multifunctional ergo metric bicycle, time is reserved to work

on it.”. Furthermore, other resources such as money and raw materials, are to a larger extent,

present for NB projects. According to two managers, money is reserved in strategic roadmaps

and raw materials are to a large extent available, and if not they will be purchased. “In our

roadmap, a certain amount of money is destined for the development of this NPD project.”.

“There are enough raw materials to experiment with and if we do not have something, we can

buy it.”. The middle managers also perceive to a large extent, possibilities to network within

the organization. The middle managers can get a lot of knowledge out of every corner of the

organization. To illustrate this, employees from the R&D department often obtain information

about materials from operational employees. This prevents problems later on in the project.

“It is easy to network here; I can gain knowledge from every corner of the organization, for

example, our developers often walk to the production department to request information

about the nature of a raw material, this will help to identify problems before they occur.”.

Finally, the middle managers of this organization perceive strategic legitimation for long-term

projects. The vision of the owner focusses on the long run, and therefore money and time is

reserved for long-term projects such as NB projects. “There is strategic legitimation for long-


term projects such as NPD because the owner has a long-term vision, and time and money is

reserved for it.”. Furthermore, NB projects which are not in line with the core business of

ErgoCo are also strategically legitimized because the scope of the holding is broader than the

strategy of ErgoCo. “There is even strategic legitimation for projects which do not belong to

the core-business of ErgoCo because we are part of a holding, which has a broader scope.”.

Table 6. Case 2 ErgoCo.


Management

support

The middle managers perceive support from the CEO because

he stimulates to come up with new ideas and these are

sometimes integrated into the strategy roadmap.

3

Long-term

orientation

In this organization, there is balance between long-term and

short-term projects. There is a long-term vision, and therefore

there are NB projects as well as some short-term projects to

increase financial results.

2

Work discretion/

autonomy

The middle managers experience, to a large extent, freedom in

their work. They can work independently and have their own

responsibilities.

3

Organic

structure

In this organization, the structure is perceived as flat,

decentralized, informal, and open. However, there are a lot of

procedures since the organization caters to the medical industry.

3

Administrative

mechanisms

This organization has a digital system for ideas, which are

selected and evaluated by the CEO. The middle managers

perceive, to a lesser degree, a structure for projects.

2


Financial

rewards

In this organization additional compensation is distributed

yearly however it is not related to projects or milestones in

projects.

1

Non-financial

Rewards

The middle managers perceive non-financial rewards in terms

of compliments or recognition when they come up with

something new.

3

Resources (time) In this organization, the availability of time is sometimes a

problem because everyone is very busy. However, for NB

projects time is reserved. Money is often available because it is

reserved for NB projects in the strategic roadmap. The middle

managers perceive that other resources such as raw materials

are present.

2

Resources

(networking)

The middle managers experience that they can network within

the organization. There is a lot of knowledge available and

middle managers can easily share and receive this knowledge

due to the informal organization.

3

Strategic

legitimation

The middle managers perceive strategic legitimation for ND

projects even if this project is outside the core business of the

organization. There is also strategic legitimation for long-term

projects.

1



4.1.3 BuilderCo

The middle managers in this organization widely perceive support from management.

If your work was outstanding, it will be appreciated by the top management and they


stimulate that kind of attitude. Another manager stated that “if I have good argumentation for

something new, the management will give me support and stimulation.”. However, new ideas

and NB projects only gain support when financial results not too far away. “With this project

the payback period is longer; and on the one hand I get support for this project because

everybody knows that it is important, but on the other, if results are taking too long we fall

back into old projects.”. This implies that there is a lot of support from the management, but

the support will decrease when there is a lack of short-term results and orientation.

The focus on short-term orientation is generally experienced by the middle managers.

Interestingly, the strategy is long-term oriented but the middle managers claimed that, in

practice, this is not the case. “The general orientation is on the long-run, but the short-term is

prioritized, which often causes stagnation on long-term projects.”. To illustrate this, projects

with a short payback period gain more priority than NB projects which often need a longer

payback period. The perspective of the organization is more on so-called ‘low-hanging fruits’

to increase financial results on the short term. “The focus is mainly on the short-term

orientation and on results from an investment company being on top of our group structure.

So the focus is on financial controls.”. As phrased by a middle manager, this short-term focus

is the result of an investment company which employs a pay-back period of two years.

Therefore, investments in long-term projects without quick earnings are difficult to start up. In

addition, work discretion/autonomy is experienced to a large extent by the middle managers.

Most of them perceive a lot of freedom to perform their job and feel that they can work on

their own ideas when these are defined in a proper way. “Our organization gives us a lot of

freedom to find new ideas. If you can define these ideas properly, you have the possibilities to

work on it. There is no obstacle for proposing ideas.”.

Apart from the culture-related factors, the middle managers perceive a flat, decentralized, and

informal structure. For example, according to one manager, the lines between the top

management and operational processes are short, even the door of the CEO is always open,

which implies the informal structure of the organization. Furthermore, there is fast feedback

and horizontal communication. “The structure of our organization is very flat, there are short

lines and there is a lot of decentralized decision making which stimulates projects because

there is a lot of communication and you can switch very easily”. In addition, administrative

mechanisms are perceived to a lesser degree. According to the middle managers, there is no

rigid system to select and evaluate projects. Middle managers have to make a business case

out of an idea, which is evaluated by the CEO. Although, a set of criteria for the evaluation of


these ideas is not present, the general criterion is that the business case must have a short

payback period. “There is no rigid system for evaluating ideas, I make a business case out of

my idea and then I evaluate it with the CEO and my manager, and mostly the criteria circle

around the low-hanging fruit potential”. According to the managers, projects are more

formally structured. The organization makes use of a so-called ‘game plan’ to introduce a new

project. In this ‘game plan’ projects are structured with milestones and it describes which

resources and employees are needed at what time. “We work with NP introduction; this is a

structured approach for projects with milestones. We call it a game plan.”. “We work with a

game plan, which outlines how we are going to develop initiatives and describes what is

needed from who.”.

The extents to which reward systems are perceived are mixed. There is only one middle

manager who claimed that he gets additional financial compensation if his project results in

additional turnover, the other managers do not. “There are no additional financial rewards at

BuilderCo, and that is not necessary anyway”. However, the managers generally perceive

non-financial rewards to a larger extent. To illustrate this, “There is verbal recognition for my

work. And you can get more responsibility if you want that”. Non-financial rewards are not

always reflected in more responsibilities, since that will lead to too many promotions,

however, one can get more freedom in one’s own ideas. “It is not always practical to give

people more responsibility because at some point they will reach the management chair,

instead they get more freedom in their own ideas and track record.”

In this organization, there is a lack of resources in terms of time and money according to the

middle managers. Generally the middle managers do not have the time to work on new ideas

or NB projects. The same problem occurs concerning the availability of money. One of the

managers claimed that the availability of money and time is used by short-term projects,

which causes a lack of resources for NB projects. “There are brainstorming sessions for new

ideas; however the priority lies with the short-term projects so there is not enough time to

work on these long-term ideas.”. “There is not a lot of money present to work on new things

with high uncertainty and long-term orientation.”. In contrast, resources in terms of

knowledge are available to a large extent. “R&D has a lot of knowledge, and that stimulates

the development of a project. There are no obstacles in terms of knowledge.”. This is also

reflected in the possibilities to network within this organization. There are possibilities to

network with different disciplines to gain additional knowledge. To illustrate this, one middle

manager stated that “There are great possibilities to network here when you need additional


knowledge, e.g. I have a lot of ideas and I can paint a practical picture of it, yet the marketing

department helps me to develop a nice story, while I ask R&D for technical support.”

Finally, the middle managers do not perceive strategic legitimation for NB projects to a large

extent. According to them, it is not the case that NB projects do not receive strategic

legitimation at all, but the focus is on short-term projects. This is reflected in the distribution

of resources, because for short-term projects, more time and money is reserved. So, there is no

strategic legitimation if the payback period is too long. “If there is an idea or trend with a

high potential, then it is strategically legitimated, however this is mostly the case when there

are results on the short-term, even if other projects on the long-term are more promising. This

is also the result of being part of a larger company, which is led by an investment company.”

.

Table 7. Case 3 BuilderCo.


Management

support

The middle managers perceive that outstanding work and

creativity is stimulated and supported by the management team.

However, it depends on the payback period of a project. If

financial results take too long, the support will decrease.

3

Long-term

orientation

The focus of this organization is on the short-term. Projects

with a short payback period get priority above long-term

projects. This is a result of the investment company leading the

corporate organization, which employs a payback period of two

years.

1

Work discretion/

autonomy

The middle managers perceive a lot of freedom to perform

their jobs. Employees also get freedom to work on ideas when

they define them properly.

3


Organic

structure

The middle managers characterize the structure of this

organization as flat, informal, and decentralized. With fast

feedback and horizontal communication between employees.

3

Administrative

mechanisms

There is no system to select and evaluate ideas. Middle

managers have to prepare a business case and the CEO will

select and evaluate these cases. If this results in a project, rigid

structures are set into place using milestones, called a game

plan.

2

Financial

rewards

Some middle managers have received additional financial

compensations, but that depends on their position. Also, the

financial reward is not based on mile stones in a project, but on

its additional turnover.

1

Non-financial

Rewards

The middle managers perceive verbal compliments and

recognition. Sometimes non-financial rewards are reflected in

more responsibility if they can appreciate it.

3

Resources (time) The middle managers experience a lack of time regarding NB

development. Most of the time is invested in short-term

projects. This is also true for financial resources. Money will

not be invested in long-term projects with higher uncertainty.

1

Resources

(networking)

Middle managers can easily network within their organization

because there is a lot of knowledge present and available.

3

Strategic

legitimation

The middle managers perceive a lack of strategic legitimation

for NB projects with a longer payback period.

1




4.1.4 LightCo

The middle managers of LightCo do not experience homogeneity in the culture-related

factors. First of all, management support is widely perceived as stimulating by the middle

managers. The management encourages middle managers to come up with NB ideas as well

as work on NB projects. They also facilitate middle managers if needed. “Searching for NB is

stimulated a lot, if there is chance to succeed, I get a lot of support and freedom to work on

it.”. “Although there is no focus on this NB project, I get support in terms of pro-active

reactions, for example: if resources are needed, in terms of repairing broken applications for

the project as well, it is pro-actively covered.”. Aside from this, the middle managers

perceive a focus on the short-term, in favor of the long-term. To illustrate this, the

organization functions more or less as a cash cow for the corporate organization. Moreover,

the organization’s aim is to win the end game in their industry, and therefore the focus is on

short-term projects. “There is no focus on this NB project because it is not the most important

project; we focus more on cost price reduction because we want to win the end game.”.

“There is no focus on NB creation projects because short-term earnings are more

important.”. Additionally, the middle managers perceive, to a large extent work

discretion/autonomy. The middle managers have freedom to perform their jobs and have

responsibilities. “Everyone has a lot of responsibility and freedom in their work.”. Though

there only is freedom to work on NB projects when the other activities are not neglected. “I

have the freedom to work on NB projects if I do not neglect the other activities.”.

The middle managers perceive the structure as organic. This is reflected by a flat and informal

structure with less procedures. The middle managers can work across disciplines, which

improves knowledge sharing and communication. “We have flat organization, we have a

broader scope than our own discipline so there is a lot of knowledge-sharing and shared

vision, and that stimulates”. Moreover, even the plant manager is approachable for feedback.

“You can even speak easily to plant manager for feedback and compliments”. In contrast, the

middle managers also perceive the presence of administrative mechanisms. To start, middle

managers have to make a project chart of their ideas and, later on, all project charts are

selected and evaluated. “There is a system for evaluating and selecting ideas, first we have to

make a plan with a budget etc. After finishing, we have to score it with the MT based on the

success rate.”. Moreover, when a project chart gets through to the project phase, a structured


approach is used to accomplish the project. The project is carried out by a committee which

integrates milestones into the project structure. “Projects are carried out by a committee, a

milestone structure is used and every time the progress has to be reported.”. An additional

financial rewards system is also present; however this is not related to milestones in NB

projects, additional risk in NB projects, or projects in general. “Rewards are present but not

for milestones in projects or projects in general, more in terms of personal development.”.

Furthermore, the middle managers perceive, to a moderate, extent non-financial rewards. To

illustrate this, non-financial rewards are not directly, but more indirectly given; “Not very

direct, however that depends on the department, but they let me know that they are happy with

my work, and it works stimulating.” “We receive verbal recognition, but not in terms of more

responsibilities.”.

In this organization the middle managers perceive, to a small extent, the availability of

resources. First of all, the middle managers are so busy with the current exploitation of their

industry as well as incremental innovations, that there is hardly any time to work on NB

projects. “Time is a problem when the project is long-term, because it has no focus.”.

Sometimes there are so many projects, that projects are classified ‘priority’, however NB

projects do not have priority which results in less time available for these kind of projects.

“Sometimes there are so many projects, that I do not have the time to do everything, projects

are then categorized according to priority. This NB project does not have priority, so I have

no time work on it and that does not stimulate.”. Second, the availability of money is often a

problem because it is only available when a year closes with additional profits. Furthermore,

less money is invested in long-term projects. “Money is a problem when it is a long-term

project then it has no focus.”.

The middle managers perceive a large extent the possibilities to network within the

organization. When middle managers need knowledge, they can easily find the required

employees. “Networking is very easy within this organization, when I need knowledge, I can

easily go to other departments. Most employees have worked here for a long time and even if

someone has switched in his position, you can find each other.”. Finally, middle managers do

not perceive a lot of strategic legitimation for NB projects. This is mainly the result of two

things. First, the organization focusses on winning the end game in order to survive, and

therefore the focus is more on projects which are short-term. “Our goal is to win the end

game and thus short-term projects are more stimulated, which takes up all our time. NB

projects for the long run are difficult because our corporate organization will not provide us


with the needed resources.”. Second, the corporate organization does not strategically

legitimize long-term NB projects because they favor short-term financial results. “We do not

get the opportunity from the corporate organization to work on this NB project so we have to

work under the radar”. “There is more strategic legitimation for short-term projects because

these projects deliver fast money; therefore we do not have much time for long-term projects

such as this NB project.”

Table 8. Case 4 LightCo.


Management

support

The middle managers perceive a lot of management support for

new ideas and NB projects; however the same management

also supports short-term projects.

3

Long-term

orientation

There is no focus on NB projects because short-term earnings

are more important. The organization functions as a cash cow

for the corporate organization. The organization’s aim is to win

the end game and therefore they focus on the short-term.

1

Work discretion/

autonomy

The middle managers perceive a lot of freedom in their jobs

and have responsibilities. There is freedom to work on NB

projects as well, if one does not neglect other activities.

3

Organic

structure

The structure of this organization is flat, informal, and there are

less procedures. The middle managers can work across

disciplines.

3

Administrative

mechanisms

Middle managers perceive the presence of administrative

mechanisms because there is a system to select, evaluate, and

implement ideas. The projects are well-structured.

3


Financial

rewards

There is an additional financial rewards system; however it is

not linked to milestones in projects or to the additional risk

which is involved.

1

Non-financial

Rewards

The middle managers receive non-financial rewards indirectly

more often than directly. This depends on the department of the

organization.

2

Resources (time) The availability of resources is perceived to a small extent by

the middle managers. There is not enough time to work on NB

projects. Moreover, money is only invested if there are

additional profits.

1

Resources

(networking)

The middle managers experience that they can network within

the organization to a large extent. There is a lot of knowledge

and most employees have worked there for a long time so

everyone can find each other.

3

Strategic

legitimation

There is not much strategic legitimation for NB projects

because the payback period is too long. The corporate

organization also employs a payback period of two years and

does not give strategic legitimation for NB projects.

1


factor is present to moderate extent, and (1) indicates factors is present to a small extent.


4.2 Cross-case analysis

4.2.1 Culture-related factors

Culture-related factors encompass management support, long-term orientation, and

work discretion/autonomy. A big diversity is found in how these factors were reported across

cases. According to table 9 there is a big difference between the entrepreneurial organizations

and the non-entrepreneurial organizations regarding long-term orientation. TechServCo and

ErgoCo both have a good balance between long-term orientation and short-term orientation;

however, at TechServCo there seems to be more focus on the long-run in comparison with

ErgoCo. To illustrate this, TechServCo highly invests in NB workgroups to strategically

strengthen their service. The non-entrepreneurial organizations BuilderCo and LightCo,

however, have a strong focus on the short-term. For example, LightCo invests mostly in

incremental innovations because they want to win the end game. These big differences

suggest that long-term orientation is both necessary and sufficient to the CE process and is

therefore indicated as a crucial factor. These differences are partially supported by the

quantitative findings. This study assumes that a high score on long-term orientation and a low

score on short-term orientation implies a focus on the long-term. This is found only at

TechServCo (M: long-term: 3.88, M: short-term: 2.50), the other cases score moderately on

both factors. Interestingly, ErgoCo scores moderately on long-term orientation (3.38) and

relatively high on short-term orientation (3.83), which is in contrast with the qualitative

findings. Therefore, the quantitative results partially reconfirm the qualitative results.

Aside from this, there is no big difference between the four organizations regarding

management support. However, management support seems to differ in nature across cases.

Whereas the management of both non-entrepreneurial cases and ErgoCo stimulate the middle

managers to come up with new ideas and are searching for NB. The management of

TechServCo facilitates the middle managers to develop NB ideas by organizing discipline

groups and workgroups. Therefore, TechServCo seems to be more pro-active in stimulating

middle managers to generate NB ideas. However, it is questionable whether a different nature

of management support is sufficient to the CE process since all the organizations have a

supporting management. Therefore, the results indicate that management support does not be

sufficient but it can be necessary for the CE process. The quantitative results partially support

the qualitative results. At first, TechServCo has the highest score (M: 3.88) of the four

organizations which supports the assumed different nature of management support between

TechServCo and the other organizations. Second, the other entrepreneurial organization,


ErgoCo has the lowest score (M: 2.72) which contradicts the qualitative findings. The non-

entrepreneurial organizations have a moderate score on management support. Thus, the

quantitative results partially reconfirm the qualitative results.

Finally, from table 9 can be derived that there is no big difference in work

discretion/autonomy across the four organizations. In all organizations, the middle managers

perceive freedom in their work, freedom to work on new ideas, and responsibilities. Since

there is a relatively large extent of work discretion/autonomy in the entrepreneurial and non-

entrepreneurial organizations, work discretion/autonomy does not seem to be sufficient but it

can be necessary for the CE process. The quantitative results support these similarities,

because the organizations score relatively high on work discretion/autonomy. Specifically,

TechServCo has the highest score (M: 4.43) and BuilderCo has the lowest score (M: 4.21).

The small difference between the highest and lowest score reflects the similarities between the

four organizations regarding work discretion/autonomy. Therefore, the quantitative results

reconfirm the qualitative results.

Table 9. Cross-case analysis culture-related factors.

Cases Sc* Management

support

Sc* Long-term

orientation

Sc* Work

discretion/autonomy

Tec

hS

ervC

o

3 “The management

facilitates ideas,

projects and NB

ideas with time and

money. We have

some workgroups

which are called IA

and PM, and the

employees involved

get 6 to 8 hours per

week as well as an

amount of money to

develop these NB

projects.”

3 “There is always a small

balance between profit on

the short-term and

investment on the long-

term, however in this field

of tension we focus on the

long-term. That is the

common thread but

sometimes we focus on the

short-term to end a year

with profit. That does not

obstruct the long-term

projects.”

3 “The freedom and autonomy

I perceive stimulates me to

work on the project. I do not

have to wait for others, I can

just go. I do not like working

in a restricted project so this

stimulates al lot.”. “We do

not have certain job

descriptions but we work

more in roles. That gives us

the opportunity to get a

broader perspective.”

Erg

oC

o

3 “The CEO stimulates

to come up with

creative ideas and

these ideas can be

integrated into the

roadmap.”

2 “There is a good balance

between long-term and

short-term orientation, the

owner of this organization

has a long-term vision and

NPD’s are in line with that

vision., therefore we invest

time and money in the kind

of projects which do not

deliver fast money.”

3 “I have a lot of freedom in

my work, of course I have

goals but I have freedom to

achieve these goals and that

stimulates me because it

enhances creativity.”


B

uil

der

Co

3 “If I have a decent

argumentation for

something new, then

the management will

give me support.”

“If you dare to stick

your neck out, it will

be appreciated. This

is a key point of

BuilderCo. That will

be supported.”

1 “The focus is mainly on

the short-term orientation

which results from an

investment company being

on top of our group

structure. So the focus is

on financial controls.”.

“The focus is on the short

term and therefore there is

not a lot of time and money

left for projects and ideas

on the long-term.”

3 “BuilderCo gives a lot of

freedom to its employees to

find new ideas. If you can

define these ideas in a

proper way, you have the

possibility to work on it.

There is no obstacle for

proposing ideas.”

Lig

htC

o

3 “Searching for NB is

stimulated a lot, if

there is a chance to

succeed, I get a lot of

support and freedom

to work on it”.

1 “I think the focus is on the

short-term because most

projects are developed to

keep customers and this

kind of projects gain more

priority than long-term

projects. This is

obstructive because I do

not have time for this NB

project.”

3 “I have a lot of freedom, I

make agreements with my

supervisor but I get the

freedom to try and that

stimulates me.”

Sc* = the score is based on the qualitative research. (3) Indicates factor is present to a large extent, (2) indicates


4.2.2 Structure-related factors

Structure-related factors include organic structure and administrative mechanisms.

There are no big differences found across cases regarding these factors. From table 10 can be

derived that there is no big difference between the four organizations in terms of organic

structure. At the entrepreneurial organizations and the non-entrepreneurial organizations a

flat, open, and informal structure is perceived by middle managers. Moreover, decentralized

decision power as well as fewer procedures are experienced by the middle managers.

However, the entrepreneurial organization ErgoCo has a lot of procedures since they cater to

the medical industry. Due to the large extent of organic structure within the four cases there

are no big differences in experiences, and organic structure does not seem to be sufficient but

it can be necessary for the CE process. The quantitative results partially support the

qualitative results. To start, all the organizations score relatively high on organic structure.

However, there are differences between the organizations. TechServCo has the highest score


(M: 6.391) and ErgoCo has the lowest score (M: 4.75

1) regarding organic structure. This does

imply a big difference between the entrepreneurial organizations. The non-entrepreneurial

organizations, BuilderCo and LightCo scored respectively (M: 5.141) and (5.57

1), which is

also a relatively big difference in comparison to TechServCo. Therefore, the quantitative

findings reconfirm the qualitative findings because both reflect a large extent of organic

structures. However, the quantitative findings contradict the qualitative findings in terms of

difference. So, it could be that the nature of this factor differs across cases, however, the

results are not detailed and consistent enough to give insight into these differences.

Furthermore, from table 10 can be derived that there are differences regarding the extent in

which administrative mechanisms are perceived. At LightCo and BuilderCo the usage of

administrative mechanisms are experienced to a higher degree than at the entrepreneurial

cases. Whereas BuilderCo evaluates and selects the proposed ideas informally, LightCo uses a

more formal structure to select the ideas. Additionally, both organizations have a formal

structure to organize projects. In contrast, the entrepreneurial organizations perceive

administrative mechanisms to a lesser degree. ErgoCo does have a digital system to select and

evaluate ideas, but the way they structure their projects is not always as intended. The most

extreme case is TechServCo which neither uses a system to evaluate and select ideas, nor has

a formal structure for their projects. According to these findings, the entrepreneurial

organizations employ administrative mechanisms to a less extent in comparison to the non-

entrepreneurial cases and therefore, it can be suggested that administrative mechanisms are

not sufficient and not necessary for the CE process. The quantitative results broadly support

the qualitative results. First of all, LichtCo has the highest score (M: 3.30) and TechServCo

has the lowest score (M: 2.38), which are in line with the qualitative results. In contrast,

ErgoCo has a slightly higher score (M: 2.75) than BuilderCo (M: 2.67), which contradicts the

qualitative results. Therefore, the quantitative results partially reconfirm the qualitative

results.

1 The organicity scale is measured with a 7 point Likert scale; therefore quantitative scores can vary from 1 till 7.


Table 10. Cross-case analysis structure-related factors.

Cases Sc* Organic structure Sc* Administrative mechanisms

Tec

hS

ervC

o

3 “Our structure is very flat and we work

across different areas, in fact we work

where work is. It looks fuzzy, but that is

not true, it stimulates cross-fertilization

and that stimulates the velocity of

projects.”

1 “There is no system to evaluate ideas, projects

or NB, there are no key points. That process is

automated. This stimulates because it is similar

to start ups, they believe in it, got money and

go for it”. “It depends on our manager

whether a project is very structured and that

can work obstructive, on the other hand, our

leadership program stimulates the use of

milestones in projects.”

Erg

oC

o

3 “Our organization is very flat, informal

and that stimulates the development of

the NPD project.”. “The structure is

also very open, financial facts are

openly discussed and presented to the

employees.”

2 “We have a digital idea system, where you can

upload an idea and the CEO evaluates these

ideas and starts them up.”. “We try to

structure our project, but in reality it does not

work that way, because sometimes we have to

deliver faster. It is hard to maintain de

structure till the end of the project”

Bu

ild

erC

o

3 “The structure of our organization is

very flat, lines are short and there is a

lot of decentralized decision making

which stimulates projects, because there

is a lot of communication and you can

switch easily”

2 “There is no a rigid system for evaluating

ideas, I make a business case of my idea and

then I evaluate it with the CEO and my

manager, and mostly the criteria circle around

the low-hanging fruit potential” “We work

with NP introduction; this is a structured

approach for projects using milestones. We

call it a game plan.”

Lig

htC

o

3 “We have a flat organization, we hae

broader view than our own discipline, so

there is a lot of knowledge sharing and

shared vision and that stimulates.”.

“The structure is very flat and the lines

are short even with SBU CEO and that

stimulates because we can switch

quickly and there is fast feedback to

questions.”

3 “There is a system for evaluating and selecting

ideas, first we have to make a plan with a

budget etc. After that we have to score this

plan together with the MT based on the success

rate.”. “Projects are carried out by a

committee, a mile stone structure is used and

every time the progress has to be reported.”



4.2.3 Reward systems

Reward systems encompass financial rewards and non-financial rewards. There are no

big differences across cases regarding these factors. According to table 11 the results vary


from no additional rewards at all to a yearly bonus. However, not one of the organizations

offers their middle managers additional financial rewards for additional risk or milestones in

CE projects. Since there are no big differences across cases and financial rewards are

perceived to a low extent, it seems that this factor is not sufficient and not necessary for the

CE process. The quantitative results support the qualitative results. To start, all organizations

scored low on financial rewards, which matches the qualitative results. According to the

quantitative results, there are some differences between the organizations. BuilderCo offers

financial rewards to a larger extent (M: 2.40) than the other organizations and ErgoCo offers

financial rewards to a lesser extent (M: 1.15) than the other organizations. TechServCo and

LightCo scored (M: 1.80) and (M: 2.04) respectively. The differences between cases reflect

the qualitative results; therefore the quantitative results reconfirm the qualitative results.

Similar to the financial rewards, there are no big differences were found between the four

organizations regarding non-financial rewards. In almost all organizations non-financial

rewards are perceived to a large extent by the middle managers. Only at LightCo, the middle

managers experience indirect recognition rather than direct. In the other cases, the middle

managers receive non-financial rewards in terms of compliments and more responsibilities.

Furthermore, TechServCo gives their middle managers non-financial rewards such as team

trips. However, at all organizations, the middle managers receive non-financial rewards and

therefore, non-financial rewards do not seem to be sufficient but it can be necessary for the

CE process. The quantitative results partially support the qualitative results. Interestingly,

LightCo scored relatively high in comparison to the other organizations on non-financial

rewards (M: 3.76), which contradicts the qualitative findings. Moreover, ErgoCo scored

relatively low on non-financial rewards (M: 2.30), which is also in contrast with the

qualitative results. Therefore, the quantitative results partially reconfirm the qualitative

findings.

Table 11. Cross-case analysis reward systems.

Case Sc* Financial rewards Sc* Non-financial rewards

Tec

hS

ervC

o

1 “We do not have additional

financial rewards except for some

managerial positions.”

3 “We reward our employees in non-financial ways in

terms of team trips, compliments, and more

responsibilities.”


Erg

oC

o

1 “There is a yearly financial

compensation for the whole

organization but it is not specified

for projects or ideas.”

3 “If I come up with something new such as a product, I

get recognition.” “I get recognition if I do my work

outstandingly.”

Bu

ild

erC

o

1 “There is no certain bonus

structure, by high exception I can

get an additional bonus but that is

not project related.”

3 “There is verbal recognition for my work and you can

get more responsibility if you appreciates that.”

Lig

htC

o

1 “Rewards are present but not for

milestones in projects or projects

in general. I receive rewards

more in terms of personal

development.”

2 “We get verbal recognition but not in terms of more

responsibilities.”



4.2.4 The availability of resources

The availability of resources includes resources (e.g. time, money) and the possibility

to network within the organization. According table 12 there are big differences across cases

regarding the availability of resources. First of all, the entrepreneurial organizations have to a

larger extent availability of resources than the non-entrepreneurial organizations. At

TechServCo, the middle managers and employees can work 6 to 8 hours a week in NB

workgroups, and a certain amount of money is reserved for this purpose as well. At the other

entrepreneurial organization, ErgoCo, the availability of resources is also experienced but in a

lesser degree. ErgoCo reserves time and money for NB projects, however most of these

resources are investments in the exploitation of their current business. In contrast, at

BuilderCo and LightCo the availability of time is hardly there according to the middle

managers. The middle managers are too busy with their daily work, which results in a lack of

time to work on NB projects. Moreover, at LightCo there is money available only when there

are additional profits, which often results in a lack of money available for NB projects. Also

BuilderCo hardly invests in NB with a high uncertainty. These big differences in the

availability of resources suggest that the availability of resources is sufficient and necessary

for the CE process and is therefore indicated as a crucial factor. The qualitative results

partially support the quantitative results. TechServCo scored higher (M: 3.90) on the

availability of resources in comparison to LightCo (M: 2.92), BuilderCo (M: 2.90), and

ErgoCo (M: 2.40). This goes hand in hand with the qualitative findings. Interestingly, ErgoCo


has the lowest score, which contrasts with the qualitative findings. Therefore, the quantitative

results partially reconfirm the qualitative results.

Aside from this, there are no big differences between the four organizations regarding the

possibilities to network within the organization. However, there seems to be a difference in

the nature of this factor. To start, with all organizations, the middle managers experience

possibilities to network because there is a lot of knowledge available and there is a formal

setting, which makes networking within the organization easy. TechServCo stimulates

networking within the organization and also arranges meetings both within and across

disciplines, which enhances knowledge sharing and cross-fertilization. Therefore it seems to

be that TechServCo is pro-active in stimulating networking within the organization. However,

it is questionable whether a difference in nature of this factor is sufficient to the CE process

since all the organizations experience possibilities to network. Thus, based on these results,

networking does not seem to be sufficient but it can be necessary for the CE process. The

quantitative results partially support the qualitative results. First of all, the organizations

score relatively high on networking, which is in line with the qualitative results. Second,

TechServCo has the highest score (M: 5.972) on networking which could reflect the different

nature of networking as perceived in this organization. In contrast with the qualitative

findings, there are also differences between the scores of the other organizations. The non-

entrepreneurial organizations BuilderCo and LightCo score (M: 4.672) and (M: 5.09

2)

respectively on networking. Moreover, ErgoCo has the lowest score (M: 4.472) on

networking. Therefore the quantitative results partially reconfirm the qualitative results.

Table 12. Cross-case analysis of the availability of resources.

Case Sc* Availability of resources Sc* Networking

Tec

hS

ervC

o

3 “Employees have time for NB in their

workgroups and in discipline groups they

have time to think about their own ideas

and disciplines.” .“Our workgroups

receive a certain amount of money to

develop NB, e.g. IA or PM.

3 “Networking in our company is very easy and

the organization stimulates it a lot. There are

work meetings where e.g. business

administration employees present to each other

what they have done for different clients. So

there is a lot of dynamism and knowledge-

sharing.”

2 The network scale is measured with a 7 point Likert scale; therefore quantitative scores can vary from 1 till 7.


Erg

oC

o

2 “For NPD such as multifunctional ergo-

metric bicycles, time is reserved for

working on it.”. “For every discipline

there is one employee, so if there is a

problem I have to make a choice and that

will lead to less time left for NPD.”. “In

our roadmap, a certain amount of money is

reserved for the development of this NPD

project.”. “There are enough raw

materials to experiment with, and if we do

not have something, we can buy it.”

3 “It is easy to network here; I can gain

knowledge from every corner of the

organization and, for example our developers

often walk to the production department to

request information about the nature of a raw

material, this will help to identify problems

before they occur.”.

Bu

ild

erC

o

1 “There are brainstorming sessions for new

ideas; however the focus is on the short-

term projects so there is not enough time to

work on these long-term ideas.”. “There is

not a lot of money available to work on

new ideas with high uncertainty and long-

term orientation”. “R&D has a lot of

knowledge and that stimulates the

development of a project. There are no

obstacles in terms of knowledge.”

3 “There are great possibilities for networking

here if I need additional knowledge, e.g. I have

a lot of ideas and I can paint a decent practical

picture of it. Yet the marketing department d

me to develop a nice story around it, while I

ask R&D for technical support.”

Lig

htC

o

1 “The capacity is a problem because we

have a restricted group of employees,

which have to focus on our production, and

then we also have incremental innovation

on products, so there is not much time left

for NB.”. “There is no enough money for

the NB project; the money we invest in the

project depends on the financial results.”

3 “Networking is very easy in this organization,

if I need knowledge, I can easily go to other

departments, most employees have worked

here for a long time and even if someone has

switched in his position, I can find others.”



4.2.5 Strategic legitimation

Strategic legitimation encompasses the legitimation for NB business projects from a

strategic point of view. There are big differences across cases regarding strategic legitimation.

The most striking difference can be found between the entrepreneurial organizations and the

non-entrepreneurial organizations. Firstly, both TechServCo and ErgoCo strategically

legitimize NB projects. The difference between those two organizations is that ErgoCo is part

of a holding, which results in a larger scope and therefore there is also strategic legitimation

for projects, which are not in line with the core business. On the other hand, TechServCo

strategically legitimizes NB projects if it could improve the competitive advantage of

organizations (their clients) in general. This strategy is very broad, which implies that a lot of


NB projects get strategic legitimation. In contrast, BuilderCo and LightCo do not strategically

legitimize projects if the payback period of a project is considered too long. Furthermore, the

corporate organization of LightCo does not allow LightCo to work on NB projects because

the corporate organization only invests in industries totally different from LightCo. Therefore

they have to work under the radar since there is no strategic legitimation for NB projects.

These big differences across cases suggest that strategic legitimation is sufficient and

necessary for the CE process and is therefore indicated as a crucial factor.

Table 13. Cross-case analysis strategic legitimation.

Case Sc* Strategic legitimation

Tec

hS

ervC

o

3 “NB will get strategic legitimation if it is in line with our core business; for example

PM. That does not mean that it is not new for us but the approach is the same.”

Erg

oC

o

3 “There is even strategic legitimation for projects which do not belong to the core-

business of ErgoCo because we are part of a holding, which has a broader scope.”.

“There is strategic legitimation for long-term projects such as NPD because the owner

has a long-term vision, and time and money is reserved for it.”

Bu

ild

erC

o

1 “There is no strategic legitimation if the pay-back period is considered too long.”

Lig

htC

o

1 “We do not get the opportunities from the corporate organization to work on this NB

project so we have to work under the radar”. “There is more strategic legitimation for

short-term projects because they deliver fast money, and therefore we do not have much

time for long-term projects such as this NB project.”



4.3 Patterns between factors across cases

The within-case analysis as well as the cross-case analysis provide insights about

possible patterns across the cases. Based on the cross case analysis the most striking

differences between the four cases are found in: long-term orientation, the availability of

resources, and strategic legitimation. The entrepreneurial organizations TechServCo and

ErgoCo experienced a high degree of these factors, which can imply a possible pattern. This

pattern is supported by the results of the within-case analysis and will be described based on


two opposite cases. First of all, it seems that a focus on long-term orientation determines

whether an organization strategically legitimizes NB projects or not. For example at ErgoCo,

the long-term orientation of the owner results in strategic legitimation for long-term projects.

“There is strategic legitimation for long-term projects such as NPD because the owner has a

long-term vision, and time and money is reserved for it.”. The opposite cases show the same

pattern in opposite sense. At BuilderCo there is a focus on the short-term because of the

investment company leading the corporate organization; therefore long-term projects do not

get strategic legitimation. “The focus is on the short term and therefore there is not a lot of

time and money left for projects and ideas on the long-term.”. “There is more strategic

legitimation for short-term projects and that is also stimulated by the BuilderCo group.

Despite the fact that this BU is free in a lot of choices, short-term facts and controls are

important for the BuilderCo group”. The above mentioned phrases also show that the focus

on long- or short-term orientation and thus the strategic legitimation seems to determine the

distribution of resources. Since the opposite cases show the same patterns in the opposite

manner, it can be assumed that a pattern exists between the focus on long-term orientation,

strategic legitimation, and the availability of resources.

4.4 The nature of factors

In the above sections, the individual cases and their differences regarding the studied

factors are described. The results indicate three types of factors in this study, namely: crucial

factors, necessary but not sufficient factors, and not necessary and not sufficient factors.

Factors are indicated as crucial when they are both sufficient and necessary for the CE

process. Moreover, if a factor is not sufficient and not necessary and the middle managers do

not highlight the stimulating role of a factor to the CE process, this factor is not important to

the CE process. Table 14 provides an overview of the factors divided by those three indicated

types. Additionally, according to the managers some factors also have an individual influence

on the CE process. This means that the extent to which a certain factor is perceived can

obstruct or stimulate the CE process.

Regarding the culture-related factors, this study indicates that long-term orientation is crucial

to the CE process. Moreover, middle managers of the non-entrepreneurial organizations

argued that a too small extent of long-term orientation obstructs NB projects. “I think the

focus is on the short-term because projects are based on keeping customers and these kind of

projects have more priority than long-term projects. This works obstructive because now I do

not have time for this NB project.”(Middle manager LightCo). These arguments are in line


with H3; long-term orientation positively influences the CE process, and therefore, H3 is

supported. Furthermore, management support is not indicated as sufficient to the CE process

since there is no big difference across cases. Still, it can be suggested that management

support is necessary for the CE process, however the results cannot ensure that the CE process

will not happen when management support is not experienced to a large extent. Additionally,

the middle managers across cases did not directly state the stimulating power of management

support to the CE process. However if the management stimulates to work on new ideas, that

will stimulate the CE process as well. “The CEO stimulates to come up with creative ideas

and these ideas can be integrated into the roadmap.”(Middle manager ErgoCo). The

arguments given above are in line with H1; management support positively influences the CE

process, and therefore, H1 is supported.

Work discretion/autonomy is not indicated in this study as sufficient to the CE process since

there is no big difference across cases. Yet, it can be suggested that work discretion/autonomy

is necessary for the CE process when it is experienced in a desirable extent, however, the

results cannot ensure that the CE process will not happen if work discretion is not desirably

experienced. Furthermore, the extent in which work discretion/autonomy is perceived by the

middle managers can either stimulate or obstruct the CE process. First of all, middle managers

across cases have highlighted that work discretion/autonomy stimulates NB projects. “I have

a lot of freedom in my work, of course I have goals but I have freedom to achieve these goals

and that stimulates me, because it enhances creativity.”(Middle manager ErgoCo)

“Employees like to work here because they have a lot of freedom to come up with ideas and

that stimulates the generation of ideas and the development of projects.”(Middle manager

TechServCo). However, the stimulating relationship between work discretion/autonomy and

the CE process does not seem to be linear because a too large extent of it can obstruct the

development of NB projects. To illustrate this, two middle managers of TechServCo argued

that “Our employees have a lot of freedom and autonomy but that does not always stimulate

the project since those employees have freedom to choose between the client and the

workgroup (e.g. IA,) and if employees always choose the client they cannot work 6 hours per

week with the workgroup. This stagnates the project.”. Therefore, the positive relation

between work discretion/autonomy and the CE process does not seem to be linear. The above

mentioned arguments are in line with H2; work discretion/autonomy positively influences the

CE process, and therefore, H2 is supported as long as work discretion is experienced to a

desirable extent.


Regarding the structure-related factors, organic structure is not indicated as sufficient to the

CE process. Though it can be suggested that an organic structure is necessary for the CE

process when it is experienced to a desirable extent, the results cannot ensure that the CE

process will not happen if an organic structure is not experienced to a desirable extent.

Moreover, the extent in which it is perceived can either stimulate or obstruct the CE process.

To start, middle managers across cases have argued the stimulating role of the organic

structure because it can increase the velocity of an NB project. “We have a very flat structure,

short lines and the door of the CEO is always open, which simulates the development of

projects.” (Middle manager BuilderCo). In contrast, too much of an organic structure can also

obstruct the CE process. For example, a middle manager of TechServCo claimed that “We

have to be careful to ensure that in this open organization the work gets done. On the one

hand this openness stimulates creativity and challenging each other but it also results in too

many employees involved in a single project or too few employees actually working on a

project.”. Moreover, similar problems are experienced at LightCo; “The downside of this flat

organization is that there is no discipline, which is dedicated responsible for this NB

project.”. These quotes suggest that the stimulating relationship between the organic structure

and the CE process is not linear. It can stimulate NB projects but too much organicity can also

obstruct NB projects. These arguments are in line with H4; organic structure-related factors

(e.g. informal, decentralized, flat hierarchy, structural differentiated, formal communication,

scanning and integration) positively influence the CE process, and therefore H4 is supported

when an organic structure is experienced to a desirable extent. Administrative mechanisms are

indicated as not sufficient and not necessary for the CE process because the entrepreneurial

organizations do not perceive administrative mechanisms to a large extent, in contrast with

the two non-entrepreneurial organizations, and the entrepreneurial organizations are still

“entrepreneurial”. Moreover, the results regarding this factor show ambiguity about whether a

large or a small extent of these mechanisms stimulates the CE process. Not one middle

manager across cases highlighted the stimulating role of administrative mechanisms.

However, the managers at TechServCo do contradict each other concerning the relationship of

administrative mechanisms with the CE process; “There is no system to evaluate ideas,

projects or NB; there are no key points. That process is automatic and stimulates because it is

similar to start ups, they believe in it, got money and go for it”. “Sometimes we miss the

benchmark or criteria in for instance, our discipline groups because they invest a lot of hours

into development but there is no measured output. Although I know that they have a lot of

output, we need more criteria in these kind of groups to measure the investment potential.”.


These quotes imply that the results are ambiguous about the relationship between

administrative mechanisms and the CE process. Given these arguments, it cannot be stated

that these mechanisms either stimulate or do not stimulate the CE process, therefore H5;

Administrative mechanisms positively influence the CE process, is not supported based on

this study.

Regarding the reward systems, financial rewards are indicated as not sufficient and not

necessary for the CE process because there is no big difference across cases and it is not used

across all cases. Moreover, the middle managers across cases did not highlight the stimulating

role of it to the CE process. In fact, most of the middle managers argued that intrinsic

motivation is more stimulating than financial rewards. “There are no additional financial

rewards at BuilderCo, that is not necessary”(middle manager BuilderCo). “We have a

normal salary structure but no additional rewards because we believe that intrinsic

motivation is important.”(Middle manager TechServCo). Although managers argue that

intrinsic motivation is more important than extrinsic motivation (financial rewards), this is

still just an opinion of managers and not a fact. Therefore, while it seems that financial

rewards are not important to the CE process, this cannot be stated based on these results. Non-

financial rewards are also not indicated as sufficient to the CE process since there is no big

difference across cases. Still, it can be suggested that non-financial rewards are necessary to

the CE process even though, the results cannot ensure that the CE process will not happen if

non-financial rewards are not received to a large extent. Furthermore, the middle managers

did not highlight the stimulating power of it to the CE process. Summarizing these arguments,

H6; reward systems positively influence the CE process, is not supported based on this study.

The availability of resources is indicated as crucial to the CE process since the big differences

between the entrepreneurial cases and the non-entrepreneurial cases. To strengthen this point,

middle managers of non-entrepreneurial cases argued that a lack of resources obstructs the

development of NB projects; “Sometimes there are so many projects, that I do not have the

time to do everything, projects are then categorized according to priority, but since this NB

project does not have priority, I have no time work on it and that does not stimulate.”(Middle

manager LightCo). The above-mentioned arguments are in line with H7; The availability of

time, financial resources, and knowledge are important resources and positively influence the

CE process, and therefore, H7 is supported. Apart from this, networking is not indicated as

sufficient to the CE process because there are no big differences across the organizations. Yet,

it can be suggested that networking is necessary to the CE process, however the results cannot


ensure that the CE process will not happen if networking is not experienced to a large extent.

Moreover, sharing knowledge and identifying problems in an early stage may stimulate the

development of NB projects. “It is easy to network here; I can gain knowledge from every

corner of the organization and, for example, our developers often walk to the production

department to request information about the nature of a raw material, this will help to identify

problems before they occur.”(Middle manager ErgoCo). Although middle managers did not

directly mention that networking stimulates the development of NB projects, they do

indirectly because if these problems had not identified, the projects would have stagnated in a

later stage. These arguments are in line with H8; networking positively influences the CE


Finally, strategic legitimation for NB projects is indicated as crucial for the CE process since

there are big differences between the entrepreneurial and non-entrepreneurial cases. One

middle manager of LightCo argued that strategic legitimation is important for the distribution

of resources, and because NB projects are not strategically legitimatized in that organization,

there is a lack of resources for NB projects. This indicates that a small extent of strategic

legitimation for NB projects can obstruct the CE process indirectly. “There is more strategic

legitimation for short-term projects because they deliver fast money, therefore we do not have

much time for long-term projects such as this NB project.”. Consistent with these arguments,

this study hypothesized that strategic legitimation for the CE process positively influences the


Table 14. The factors indicated in three types.

Sufficient and

necessary (crucial)

Not sufficient, but

can be necessary

Not sufficient and

not necessary

Experienced to a

high extent in all

the cases

- - Management support*

- Work

discretion/autonomy*

- Organic structure*

- Networking*

- Reward systems; non-

financial reward systems*

-


Experienced to a

high extent at the

entrepreneurial

cases only

- Long-term orientation

- The availability of

resources

-Strategic legitimation

- -

Experienced to a

high extent at the

non-entrepreneurial

cases only

- - - Administrative

mechanisms

Not experienced in

any case

-

-

- Reward systems; financial

reward system

* These factors can be necessary to the CE process; however the results cannot confirm this relationship.

4.5 Summary of the results

This study analyzed the data in several ways. First, the within-case analysis has

provided insights in how the different factors are perceived by middle managers in every

single case. This analysis was the basis for the rest of the chapter. From the cross-case

analysis can be derived that there are big differences across the cases. The most striking

differences between the entrepreneurial and non-entrepreneurial organizations were found in

long-term orientation, the availability of resources, and strategic legitimation. These factors

can be indicated as crucial to the CE process. Second, patterns between these factors are

found. It appears that long-term orientation determines which projects gain strategic

legitimation, which is important for the distribution of resources. Finally, management

support, work discretion/autonomy, organic structure and networking are indicated as factors

which are not sufficient but can be necessary for the CE process. It also became clear that the

positive relationship between both work discretion/autonomy and organic structure on one

side, and the CE process on the other, is not linear. This indicates that with these factors,

presence to a too large extent can obstruct the CE process.


5. Discussion

This chapter embodies a discussion about the different factors and how they are related

to the CE process. Additionally, the patterns between the factors are described. The researcher

further links these relationships and patterns to the literature. Some relationships match with

the literature, while others do not. This leads to propositions which are the input for the

conclusions. Subsequently, additional factors will be discussed and to end this chapter, the

theoretical development of the PEOA will be described.

5.1 Culture-related factors

The results indicate that long-term orientation is crucial for the CE process since there

are big differences between cases. The entrepreneurial cases in this study focus on NB

projects which could result in potential new products or new services in the long run. For

example, at TechServCo, the focus is clearly on strategic goals (long-term orientation) even if

it sometimes negatively influences financial controls (short-term orientation). These results

are in line with Zahra (1996), who found that long-term orientation is positively related with

entrepreneurial activities. Further, management support is not sufficient, but can be necessary

for the CE process because the results indicate that both non-entrepreneurial and

entrepreneurial organizations experienced this factor to a large extent. Yet, this study cannot

prove that management support is necessary for the CE process. However, the middle

managers generally stated that their management stimulates them to work on new ideas,

which is in line with the findings of Hornsby et al. (2002). Therefore, the results still point in

the direction of management support stimulating the CE process. Finally, the results have

indicated that work discretion/autonomy is not sufficient, but can be necessary to the CE

process, because it is experienced to a large extent by the middle managers across cases.

However, these findings do not show enough evidence to state that work discretion/autonomy

is necessary for the CE process. Yet, the middle managers argued that responsibilities,

freedom in their work and freedom to work on new ideas stimulate the development of NB

projects. This is also in line with Hornsby et al. (2002), who stated that top-level managers

who tolerate failure, provide decision-making freedom, and freedom from extreme

supervision, and delegate authority and responsibility, also play a part in influencing

entrepreneurial activities. In contrast with Hornsby et al. (2002), the results indicate that too

much work discretion/autonomy can obstruct the CE process, and as such the relation

between work discretion/autonomy and the CE process is not linear. This means that work


discretion/autonomy only stimulates the CE process when it is perceived to a desirable extent.

Moreover, as far as the researcher knows, this is new to the literature. Concluding, long-term

orientation is a crucial and stimulating determinant of the PEOA since it is sufficient and

necessary to the CE process. In addition, both management support and work

discretion/autonomy are stimulating determinants of the PEOA due to their effect on CE

process.

5.2 Structure-related factors

Next to culture related factors, structure related factors can also be important for the

CE process. Referring to the results, however, an organic structure is not sufficient but can be

necessary for the CE process since it is experienced to a large extent by the middle managers

of both the entrepreneurial and the non-entrepreneurial organizations. Although, the findings

cannot prove that an organic structure is necessary for the CE process, the middle managers

argued that their informal, open, and decentralized structure stimulates the velocity of NB

projects. This matches the study of Covin and Slevin (1988), who found strong support that

an organic structure promotes entrepreneurial activities. In contrast, the results indicate that a

too large extent of organic structure can obstruct the CE process, because then no one is

dedicated to the NB project or it is unclear who is doing what. This suggests that the positive

relationship between an organic structure and the CE process is not linear. Therefore, an

organic structure can stimulate the CE process, whereas too much of it can obstruct it.

Moreover, this is not new to the literature, Volberda (1993) argued that too much of an

organic structure can result in a chaotic organization which will impede the CE process

because there are uncontrolled and unfocused actions. Furthermore, the results show that

administrative mechanisms are not sufficient and not necessary for the CE process because

the middle managers at the entrepreneurial firms do not experience it to a large extent.

Proposition 1: Long-term orientation is a crucial and stimulating determinant of the PEOA.

Proposition 2: Management support is a stimulating determinant of the PEOA.

Proposition 3: Work discretion/autonomy is a stimulating determinant of the PEOA, however

too much of it can obstruct the CE process.


Moreover, the middle managers did not highlight the stimulating role of administrative

mechanisms across cases. Therefore, no relationship is found between administrative

mechanisms and the CE process. This finding opposes literature because Burgelman and

Sayles (1986) noted the importance of administrative mechanisms regarding the evaluation,

selection, and implementation of ideas. Concluding, an organic structure is a stimulating

determinant to the PEOA because it stimulates the CE process. Additionally, based on this

study, administrative mechanisms are not sufficient, not necessary, and not stimulating

determinants of the PEOA because they are not sufficient, and not necessary, and not

stimulating for the CE process.

5.3 Reward systems

The results of this study do not indicate that financial rewards are sufficient and

necessary to the CE process since it is not experienced across cases, and middle managers did

not argue for its stimulating role in general. Since the middle managers at the entrepreneurial

cases specifically did not experience a large extent of financial rewards and did not highlight

that it would stimulate the CE process, there is no relationship found between financial

rewards and the CE process. Again, this contradicts literature, because Brazeal (1996) found

that financial rewards for milestones or additional risks in projects are positively related to

entrepreneurial activities. One reason for this contradiction could be the general culture of the

Northern Netherlands. Moreover, most managers across cases argue that financial rewards are

not necessary and that intrinsic motivation is much more important for the development of

new ideas etc. This could be a cultural aspect of the Northern Netherlands and therefore

studies with research settings in America regarding this factor show differences. However, it

could also be a cultural aspect that managers do not believe in the stimulating role of financial

rewards, but that in practice however, financial rewards could stimulate the CE process,

although this is not reflected in this study. On the other side, non-financial rewards are also

indicated as not sufficient but can be necessary for the CE process since it is experienced to a

large extent across cases. However, the middle managers did not argue for its stimulating role

either. Although Hornsby et al. (2002) suggest that compliments, recognition, and more

responsibilities can stimulate the CE process, this case study research cannot confirm that

non-financial rewards are necessary or stimulating for the CE process. Moreover, while

Proposition 4: An organic structure is a stimulating determinant of the PEOA, however too

much of it can obstruct the CE process.


Hornsby et al. (2002) argue that non-financial rewards stimulate entrepreneurial behavior,

they did not find statistical evidence either. This can imply that non-financial rewards do not

significantly stimulate the CE process. In short, financial and non-financial rewards are not

sufficient, not necessary, and not stimulating determinants of the PEOA because they are not

sufficient, not necessary, and not stimulating to the CE process based on this study.

5.4 The availability of resources

Although, reward systems do not seem to be so important for the CE process, the

availability of resources is the opposite. In fact, the availability of resources is indicated as

crucial to the CE process because there are big differences between the entrepreneurial cases

and non-entrepreneurial cases. For example, at TechServCo NB workgroups can work 6 to 8

hours a week on NB ideas. In addition, money is reserved for these workgroups. At ErgoCo,

the availability of resources is not experienced to an extent that large, but time and money is

still reserved for NB projects. This is in line with literature because Hornsby et al. (2002)

indicated resources as an important dimension of CE. Furthermore, Covin and Slevin (1991)

and Hitt et al. (2001) argued that resources are the base of all activities in an organization and

thus can facilitate or limit CE behavior. Furthermore, networking within organizations is

indicated as not sufficient but can be necessary for the CE process because it is experienced to

large extent across cases. Yet, this study cannot prove that management support is necessary

for the CE process. Nevertheless, the middle managers of the entrepreneurial cases

highlighted, although not explicitly, the importance of networking to the CE process because

it can enhance knowledge-sharing and help identify problems at an early stage in the process.

In line with these results, the literature pointed out that social capital (part of networking), and

thus the transferability of resources is important for CE (Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005). In

short, the availability of resources is a crucial and stimulating determinant of the PEOA,

because it is sufficient and necessary to the CE process. Moreover, networking within

organizations is a stimulating determinant of the PEOA, because it stimulates the CE process.

Proposition 6: Networking within the organization is a stimulating determinant of the PEOA.

Proposition 5: The availability of resources is a crucial and stimulating determinant of the

PEOA.


5.5 Strategic legitimation

Finally, the results reveal that strategic legitimation for NB projects is crucial to the

CE process as shown in the big differences between the entrepreneurial and the non-

entrepreneurial organizations. Both of the entrepreneurial cases strategically legitimize NB

projects. For example, TechServCo does it if it can lead to new services which can strengthen

organizations’ (clients) competitive advantage. This is in line with literature because

Bouchard (2001) argued that if an organization strategically legitimizes the CE process, it is

more likely that NB projects gain strategic legitimation. Therefore, strategic legitimation of

the CE process is a crucial and stimulating determinant of the PEOA.

5.6 Propositions regarding the PEOA

After discussing the main results, seven propositions have been developed. These

seven propositions are input for the conclusions and together lead to a revised theoretical

conceptual framework (see section 6.1.3, p.71). This study found that three factors are crucial

and stimulating determinants of the PEOA, which include (P1) long-term orientation, (P5) the

availability of resources, and (P7) strategic legitimation. Moreover, four factors are indicated

as stimulating determinants of the PEOA, which include (P2) management support, (P3) work

discretion/autonomy, (P4) organic structure, and (P6) networking within the organization. In

addition, this study did not find that administrative mechanisms, financial rewards, or non-

financial rewards are sufficient, necessary or stimulating to the CE process, which implies that

these factors do not determine the PEOA. However, literature highlights the importance of

these factors for the CE process. Therefore, based on this study these factors cannot be ruled

out as determinants of the PEOA, neither they can be proposed as potential determinants.

5.7 Patterns between factors

The big differences between the entrepreneurial cases and the non-entrepreneurial

cases provide insights into crucial factors of the CE process and thus of the PEOA. Moreover,

these crucial factors seem to influence each other which can imply a pattern between them. To

start out, as indicated, without any focus on the long run, the development of NB projects may

take too long or not develop at all. Besides, long-term orientation appears to be related to

Proposition 7: Strategic legitimation of the CE process is a crucial and stimulating determinant

of the PEOA.


ownership of the organization. Both of the entrepreneurial cases are independent

organizations, while the non-entrepreneurial organizations are part of corporate organizations

which often act as an investment company or are led by an investment company. These

corporate organizations only invest in projects with a payback period of two years or less,

whereas the entrepreneurial cases invest in long-term projects. Interestingly, the CEO of an

entrepreneurial case mentioned that ownership (of the organization) is an important factor for

the CE process, which goes hand in hand with the findings of Zahra (1996). Moreover, from

the case studies can be learned that a focus on long-term- or short-term orientation also

determines which projects are strategically legitimized. For example, the non-entrepreneurial

cases do not gain strategic legitimation for long-term projects in contrast to the

entrepreneurial cases. Thus, if an organization has a focus on the long-term, the CE process is

likely to be strategically legitimized. In addition, strategic legitimation is important for the

distribution of resources, which is also stated by Bouchard (2001). The middle managers at

the entrepreneurial cases have time and money to work on NB projects. In contrast, the

middle managers of the non-entrepreneurial cases often argued that without a focus on the

long-term, NB projects will not gain strategic legitimation, and thus no priority, which results

in a lack of time for an NB project. If there is not enough time to work on NB projects, the

development of the project stagnates or will not happen at all. In conclusion, there seems to be

a pattern between long-term orientation, strategic legitimation, and the availability of

resources. Moreover, this study indicates that this pattern occurs at the entrepreneurial

organizations and that the opposite occurs at the non-entrepreneurial organizations. Therefore,

it is likely that this pattern of factors is crucial to the CE process.

5.8 Additional factors

Furthermore, the middle managers of the cases also argued in favor of additional

factors which could stimulate the CE process. For example, one middle manager of the

entrepreneurial case argued that internal promotion of your own NB project will stimulate the

CE process because interested and motivated employees will connect to and be integrated in

the process. Interestingly, Howell, Shea, and Higgins (2005) argued that a key competence of

corporate entrepreneurs is to get the right people involved with their innovations. Although

this can potentially stimulate the CE process, it seems to be more of an individual

characteristic rather than an internal organizational factor. Another middle manager argued

that challenging other employees and undertaking challenging projects with employees across

the organization will stimulate the CE process. This is similar to Ghoshal and Bartlett (1994),


who argued that setting challenging goals can disrupt organizations from organizational

equilibrium. However, they did not link this with the CE process. Although these additional

factors may stimulate the CE process it cannot be stated that these factors determine the

PEOA. Moreover, only two middle managers from one case highlighted these factors as

stimulating to the CE process. Therefore, these factors are not sufficiently reasoned to be

determinants of the PEOA.

5.9 Theoretical development of the PEOA

Up to this point, this study discussed the factors in relation with the CE process and as

potential determinants for the PEOA. Moreover, findings were compared to the available

literature to discuss differences and similarities. However, theory development is not

discussed yet. Therefore, this section will describe the differences and additional value of this

study compared to earlier research.

In the years before 1990, many researchers argued about different settings, dimensions, and

factors which could stimulate the CE process. However, there was a lot of ambiguity about

how settings/factors should be named and which of them really stimulated the CE process.

Therefore, Kuratko et al. (1990) reviewed the literature and proposed five consistent factors

which can together form a CE intensive internal organizational environment. This was one of

the first conceptualizations of an environment which could provide insight into the PEOA.

Through the years, this CEAI model was tested and some factors (organizational boundaries)

did not meet the validity requirements. Consistent with the literature, this study has found that

three factors of their initial CEAI model can determine the PEOA. This is in line with

Hornsby et al. (2013) who excluded organizational boundaries from their initial model. In

contrast with this research, this study found that reward systems do not stimulate the CE

process. The culture of the Northern Netherlands, the research setting of this study, could be a

possible explanation for this difference. Still, this could imply that the initial CEAI model

does not entirely fit other research settings since this model was developed using research

settings in America. Additionally, in this study a literature review is performed and the

empirical data sheds light on four factors which could potentially be a valuable addition to the

CEAI model. Besides these two developments, this study also found that some factors do not

have a linear relationship with the CE process. Although Volberda (1993) highlighted that too

much of an organic structure can lead to a chaotic organization, too much work

discretion/autonomy was never discussed in the literature. Furthermore, this study indicated

that long-term orientation, the availability of resources, and strategic legitimation are


sufficient and necessary for the CE process. This implies that without these factors, the CE

process cannot occur. According to the knowledge of the researcher, up to this point, the

literature has not indicated or discussed the nature of factors. While it is not new in literature

that a configuration of factors is important to stimulate the CE process, it is new that this

configuration at least consist of these three crucial factors. In conclusion, this study proposes

a configuration of seven factors to determine the PEOA and describes the nature of these

factors. This is a new step in the theory development regarding factors which can stimulate

the CE process and therefore, can determine a CE intensive internal organizational

environment.


6. Conclusion

In this chapter, the research questions of this study will be answered. Moreover,

answers to the sub-questions will be concisely repeated. However, sub-question 1 is excluded

because there is no additional value to describing the typology of CE again (see section 2.1 p.

5 for an extensive answer). Extensive answers to sub-question 1 and 2 can be found in chapter

2, the theoretical framework. Furthermore, sub-question 3 is answered in chapter 4, the

results. Finally, based on these answers it is possible to answer the main research question of

this study; “Which internal organizational factors determine the pro-entrepreneurship

organizational architecture?”. This answer leads to theoretical (section 6.2) and practical

implications (section 6.3), a number of limitations (section 6.4), and suggestions for further

research (section 6.5).

6.1 Answers to the research questions

6.1.1 Sub-question 2

In order to answer the main research question of this study, a review of the literature is

needed to find a set of factors which can potentially determine the PEOA. This is covered by

answering sub-question 2 and is extensively described in chapter 2. In this section, a

summarized answer will be given.

Although some scholars had provided the literature with a framework of factors (Kuratko et

al., 1990, Covin and Slevin, 1991), the literature still lacks a well-covered PEOA which could

stimulate the CE process. Moreover, Kuratko et al. (1990) conducted an extensive review of

the literature in order to build a model to predict an organization’s readiness for CE, which

was later empirically tested by Hornsby et al. (2002). Therefore, four factors3 of their CEAI

model are included in the conceptual model of this study which resulted in the following

hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1. A supportive management positively influences the CE process.

Hypothesis 2. Work discretion/autonomy positively influences the CE process.

Hypothesis 6. A reward system which both includes financial incentives such as additional

risk rewards and non-financial incentives such as recognition, promotion, positive feedback,

and more responsibility positively influences the CE process.

3 The factor, which is included in Hypothesis 6, also includes financial rewards which is based on Ornati and

Block (1987) and is a result of the literature review of this study.


Hypothesis 7. The availability of time, financial resources, and knowledge are important

resources and positively influence the CE process.

Next to these four factors, this study further reviewed the literature to develop a more

complete conceptual theoretical framework of the PEOA, which has led to the following

hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3. Long-term time orientation positively influences the CE process.

Hypothesis 4. Organic structure-related factors (e.g. informal, decentralized, flat hierarchy,

structural differentiated, formal communication, scanning and integration) positively

influence the corporate entrepreneurial process.

Hypothesis 5. Administrative mechanisms can control the evaluation, selection and

implementation of corporate entrepreneurial ideas which positively influences the CE

process.

Hypothesis 8. Networking positively influences the CE process because it can increase the

possibilities to acquire the resources needed.

Hypothesis 9. Strategic legitimation of the CE process positively influences the process and

the distribution of resources to the project.

The five factors mentioned in the hypotheses above are the result of the literature review and

are additional to the model of Kuratko et al. (1990, 2005b, 2014) and Hornsby et al. (2002,

2013). Taken together, these nine hypotheses form a traceable conceptual theoretical

framework (see chapter 2, p. 17.) in this study. Furthermore, the factors can positively

influence the CE process and therefore determine the PEOA, which answers sub-question 2.

6.1.2 Sub-question 3

The factors resulting from the literature review are the starting point for sub-question 3

“How does the perception of the pro-entrepreneurship organizational architecture vary across

companies and why?” which is answered in chapter 4 ‘results’. To start, the hypotheses based

on the literature review are tested by answering this sub-question. Aside from supporting or

rejecting these hypotheses, this study found that some factors are sufficient and necessary and

therefore crucial to the CE process because there are big differences between the

entrepreneurial cases and non-entrepreneurial cases. The most striking differences between

the entrepreneurial and non-entrepreneurial organizations were found in long-term

orientation, the availability of resources, and strategic legitimation. These factors can be


indicated as crucial to the CE process. Furthermore, there seems to be a reason why these

factors vary across cases and thus patterns between these factors are found. It appears that

long-term orientation determines which projects gain strategic legitimation, which is

important for the distribution of resources. Moreover, management support, work

discretion/autonomy, organic structure and networking are indicated as factors which are not

sufficient but can be necessary for the CE process. The middle managers of the four cases

highlighted the stimulating role of some factors and these factors are also perceived to a high

extent at the entrepreneurial cases, therefore the results indicate that hypothesis 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8,

and 9 are supported. Finally, it became clear that the positive relationship between work

discretion/autonomy and organic structure on one side, and the CE process on the other, is not

linear. This indicates that, when experienced to a too large extent these factors can obstruct

the CE process. In conclusion, the variation across cases and the perception of the middle

managers resulted in a set of factors which are the input for answering the main research

question.

6.1.3 The main research question

This study has indicated seven determinants for the PEOA. Due to the discussion

chapter and answering the three sub-questions these factors can be divided in crucial and

stimulating determinants of the PEOA. Based on the discussion chapter, propositions (P) are

developed and together with this concluding section, this has resulted in a new proposed

model which reflects the PEOA. To start, three culture-related factors are important to the

PEOA. (P1) Long-term orientation is a crucial determinant of the PEOA because it is

sufficient and necessary for the CE process. Therefore, in the PEOA the focus is on strategic

goals (Zahra, 1996). (P2) Management support is a stimulating determinant of the PEOA

because it stimulates the CE process. This implies that in the PEOA, employees with new

ideas get supported and facilitated by the top-management (Hornsby et al., 2002). (P3) Work

discretion/autonomy is a stimulating determinant of the PEOA because it stimulates the CE

process. However, it is only stimulating when it is perceived to a desirable extent. This means

that too much of it can obstruct the CE process. Therefore, in the PEOA, top-level managers

provide decision-making freedom, and freedom from extreme supervision, and they delegate

authority and responsibility (Hornsby et al., 2002). In addition, this study found that one of

the structure- related factors is important to the PEOA. (P4) An organic structure is indicated

as a stimulating determinant of the PEOA because it stimulates the CE process. However, it is

only stimulating when it is perceived to a desirable extent. This means that too much of it can


obstruct the CE process. Hence, in the PEOA the structure is flat, decentralized, and informal

(Khandwalla, 1977), but too much organicity can lead to chaos and impede the CE process

(Volberda, 1993). Furthermore, this study has indicated that the factors associated with

resources are important to the PEOA. (P5) The availability of resources is a crucial

determinant of the PEOA because it is sufficient and necessary for the CE process. This

implies that in the PEOA, time, money, and other resources are available to work on NB

projects (Hornsby et al., 2002). (P6) Networking within the organization is a stimulating

factor of the PEOA because it stimulates the CE process. Therefore, in the PEOA a large

extent of human capital (e.g. knowledge, expertise, and creativity) and social capital (e.g.

transferability and transforming of knowledge) is available, which encompasses networking

within the organization (Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005). Finally, (P7) strategic legitimation

of the CE process is a crucial determinant to the PEOA. Hence, at the PEOA, NB projects are

strategic legitimized (Bouchard, 2001).

Although the CE process can occur if only the crucial factors are perceived, a configuration of

the seven factors seems to be important for the CE process. For example, networking will

further stimulate the CE process because employees can work together on ideas and transfer

their specific knowledge to improve ideas and construct them into valuable projects.

However, networking cannot stimulate the CE process, if there are no resources available or

when there is no strategical legitimation for the CE process. Furthermore, the findings do not

indicate that only the crucial factors are important for the CE process, but the configuration of

these seven factors will stimulate the CE process. Therefore, a configuration of these seven

factors can determine the PEOA. Yet, is seems that a configuration of factors should at least

consist of these crucial factors, otherwise the CE process cannot occur. Moreover,

configuration thinking is not new in the CE literature, Hornsby et al. (2002) also stated that a

set of factors are important to obtain the CE process and not any one aspect is enough to

effectively stimulate the CE process. In summary, culture-related factors, structure-related

factors, resources, and strategic legitimation are determinants of the PEOA. Based on the

empirical data, a configuration of these seven indicated factors determine the PEOA and will

positively influence the CE process. While Kuratko et al. (1990, 2005b, 2014) and Hornsby et

al. (2002, 2013) indicated earlier that management support, work discretion/autonomy, and

the availability of resources are important for a CE intense environment, this study found that

a configuration of these factors together with long-term orientation, organic structure,

networking, and strategical legitimation will stimulate the CE process and therefore,


determine the PEOA. This study indicated which factors are sufficient and necessary and thus

crucial for the CE process. Consequently, this has resulted in a revised version of the

conceptual framework and thus this study proposes the following framework:

* Stimulating factor to the CE process.

** Crucial and stimulating factor to the CE process

Figure 2. Revised theoretical framework.

6.2 Theoretical implications

This study has a number of implications for the theory. First of all, the configuration

of the indicated seven factors of the PEOA is new to the CE literature. Until this moment, the

internal organizational factors roamed and the literature lacked a well-covered PEOA. In fact,

Ireland et al. (2009) suggested some internal organizational factors which are partially based

on Hornsby et al. (2002); however more research is needed to improve this composition of

factors. Therefore, the configuration of the seven indicated factors is of considerable value for

this literature and can be seen as a new step in this theory development.

Second, the outcomes of this study can be valuable to the current CEAI of Hornsby et al.

(2002). The PEOA as outlined in this study integrates management support, work

discretion/autonomy, and the availability of resources, which stem from the initial CEAI

model, and is in line with Hornsby et al. (2013). However, this study has indicated that reward

systems do not stimulate the CE process. Although this is probably a cultural aspect of the

Northern Netherlands, it could imply that this factor is less important in research settings

outside America. Furthermore, this study found that long-term orientation, organic structure,


networking, and strategic legitimation are important for the CE process and can be considered

an addition to the initial CEAI model. Hornsby et al. (2002) argued that the CEAI can provide

insight into the extent that an organization has a PEOA. Therefore, the four additional

indicated factors could be a valuable addition to the CEAI, and all the proposed factors

together form an available measurement tool to provide a better insight in the PEOA.

Third, whether factors are crucial or stimulating determinants of the PEOA and thus are

crucial or stimulating to the CE process is of considerable value for the CE literature.

According to the knowledge of the researcher, previous research has not indicated that factors

can differ in importance to the CE process. This can help researchers better understand why

the CE process occurs to a certain extent, which factors are crucial for this CE process, and

which factors can further stimulate this CE process. Moreover, this study has indicated that

the relation between some factors and the CE process is not linear. Although in the literature it

is known that too much organicity can obstruct the CE process (Volberda, 1993), it is new to

the literature that too much work discretion/autonomy can also impede the CE process. The

nature of factors and their relationship with the CE process is also new in the theory

development of the CEAI instrument.

Finally, this study has partially used the CEAI and translated it into Dutch, which had not

been done before. Moreover, most of the studies regarding this topic have been conducted

outside Europe and could result in unknown differences. As stated earlier, literature

consistently argues that rewards systems are important for the CE process, whereas this study

did not find any relationship between rewards and the CE process. This can imply differences

across countries. Hence, the outcomes of this study can be of considerable value to the current

knowledge in the CE literature, since this study has its origin in the Netherlands.

6.3 Practical implications

The results of this study have practical implications for a wide range of practitioners

aside from NPAL. For organizations it is important to continuously run faster in order to gain

competitive advantage. CE can help organizations win this race, but it is difficult for

organizations to be corporate entrepreneurial. This study can give practitioners an opportunity

to organize their internal environment in such way that it can strengthen the

entrepreneurialness of the organization. Regarding the CE process, it is important for

organizations to have a PEOA. Therefore, it is crucial for organizations to have at least a good

balance between long-term orientation and short-term orientation. This means that


organizations should not only focus on financial controls but also on strategic goals. If

managers in organizations have a long-term orientation, there is a bigger chance that NB

projects gain strategic legitimation. Moreover, if NB projects have strategic legitimation, it is

more likely that there are resources available for the development of these NB projects.

Therefore, if practitioners want to change an organizational internal environment into a

PEOA, it is of crucial importance that an organization has a long-term orientation, strategic

legitimation for the CE process, and has resources available for NB projects.

Moreover, practitioners can stimulate the CE processes in their organizations through creating

a PEOA where managers support and facilitate new ideas of employees. It is also

recommended that employees have their own responsibilities, freedom in their work, and are

free from extreme supervision of managers. Additionally, it is important that the PEOA has a

flat hierarchy, decentralized decision making, and an informal structure. This will increase

knowledge-sharing, cross-fertilization, and thereby the velocity of NB projects. Finally,

practitioners can stimulate the CE process when the PEOA offers possibilities to network

within the organization. For networking within the organization it is important that both

human capital and social capital are present in a high extent in the organization. This results in

a high transferability of knowledge, expertise, and creativity across disciplines.

In summary, practitioners can increase the entrepreneurialness of their organization when they

use a configuration of the seven indicated determinants to the PEOA. It will be of crucial

importance to create an internal environment which consists of long-term orientation,

strategic legitimation for the CE process, and availability of resources. Without these factors,

the CE process may not be efficient which results in underdeveloped NB projects.

6.4 Limitations

Similar to other studies, this study has some limitations. The first limitation concerns

the selection of the cases. While the reliability of the EO construct usually is high, this study

has some problems with the innovativeness scale. Due to a low Cronbach’s alpha on this

scale, the results are less reliable, which could result in wrongly identified cases. Additionally,

the qualitative nature of this study can provide some limitations since qualitative research is

connected to the subjectivity of the researcher while analyzing the data. All this together

creates problems for the reliability of this study and thus, it may be hard to confirm the

presented results.


Furthermore, this study is performed at four organizations in the manufacturing industry in

Northern Netherlands. This causes limitations to the generalizability of this study. Due to this

small sample, the data has to be interpreted with caution because there is a chance that

situations occur coincidentally. Since the case studies took place at one point in time, there is

chance of reversed causalities.

In addition, the unit of analysis can be a limitation of this study, as well. The researcher

interviewed middle managers and therefore their interpretation of the questions can differ

from top managers or operational employees. This could result in over- or underestimated

interpretations of the current situation of the organizations and therefore possibly wrong

conclusions. To increase the reliability of the data, it is advisable to interview employees from

different positions in the organization to assure the accuracy of the results.

6.5 Suggestions for further research

While performing this study, new questions have emerged and indicated possibilities

for further research. First of all, (1) this study has used a deductive approach for the analysis

of the data, therefore it will be interesting for further research to use an inductive approach.

This inductive approach could be used to identify new factors which could be valuable to the

PEOA. Moreover, the suggested research approach can further identify whether ‘challenging’

employees and ‘promoting one’s own CE project’ are important factors to the PEOA. (2)

Second, it would be valuable to repeat this study in a longitudinal research form, with a bigger

sample, and including more industries, to increase the generalizability of the results and

conclusions. Moreover, to increase the reliability, it is advisable to expand the unit of analysis

with more employees from different positions to gain better insights in the current situation of

organizations. (3) The indicated factors could be valuable additions to the current CEAI,

however, further research is needed to develop a reliable measurement construct for these

items to increase the reliability and validity. (4) Furthermore, this study has recognized a

pattern between factors, however further research is needed to confirm if this pattern is

consistent over more cases and to recognize whether there are more patterns between the

factors. A valuable addition would be to identify whether ownership is a predictor of this

pattern. Identifying patterns between factors is important because it can provide more insight

into factors related to the CE process. Additionally, (5) this study indicated the nature of

factors and how they differ in their importance to the CE process. It would be interesting to

indicate more crucial factors to the CE process. This is important because crucial factors can

improve insights into which configuration of factors is needed for the PEOA. Moreover, this


study cannot prove that some factors are necessary to the CE process; therefore, more

research is needed to indicate which of these factors are actually necessary. The relationship

between some factors and the CE process is also not linear, and therefore a desirable extent is

suggested. However, it would be interesting to investigate the trade off point between the

stimulating and obstructive character of these factors. Finally, (6) this study found that reward

systems and especially financial reward systems do not stimulate the CE process. At first

glance, this seems to be a cultural aspect of the Northern Netherlands, however this is not

explicitly investigated in this study and therefore, further research can provide insight into this

phenomenon. Moreover, further research cannot only investigate whether this is related to the

culture of the Northern Netherlands, it can also provide insight into whether it is a cultural

aspect of The Netherlands, or perhaps of more countries in Europe.


7. Bibliography

Babbie, E. (2012). Social research counts. Cengage Learning.

Barnett, W. P., & Sorenson, O. (2002). The Red Queen in organizational creation and.

development. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(2), 289-325.

Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1994). Changing the role of top management: beyond strategy

to purpose. Harvard Business Review, 72(6), 79-88.

Belousova, O., & Gailly, B. (2013). Corporate entrepreneurship in a dispersed setting: actors,

behaviors, and process. International entrepreneurship and management journal, 9(3),

361-377.

Birkinshaw, J. (1997). Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: The characteristics of

subsidiary initiatives. Strategic management journal, 18(3), 207-229.

Block, Z., Ornati, O.A., 1987. Compensating corporate venture managers. Journal of Business

Venturing 2, 41–51.

Block. Z.. & MacMillan, I, C. (1993). Corporate venturing: Creating new businesses within

the firm. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Bouchard, V. (2001). Exploring corporate entrepreneurship: A corporate strategy perspective.

École de management Lyon.

Brazeal, D. V. (1996). Managing an entrepreneurial organizational environment: A

discriminant analysis of organizational and individual differences between

autonomous unit managers and department managers. Journal of Business Research,

35(1), 55-67.

Burns, T. & Stalker, G.M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.

Burgelman, R.A. (1983b). A Process Model of Internal Corporate Venturing in the

Diversified Major Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 223-244.

Burgelman, R. A. and Sayles, L. R. (1986). Inside Corporate Innovation: Strategy, Structure,

and Managerial Skills. New York: Free Press

Cornelius, B., Landström, H., & Persson, O. (2006). Entrepreneurial studies: The dynamic

research front of a developing social science. Entrepreneurship Theory and

Practice, 30(3), 375-398.


Cornwall, J. & Perlman, B. (1990). Organizational entrepreneurship. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1986). The development and testing of an organizational-level

entrepreneurship scale. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research, 1(1986), 626-639.

Covin, J.G. & Slevin, D.P. (1988). The influence of organization structure on the utility of an

entrepreneurial top management style. Journal of Management Studies, 25(3), 217–

234.

Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and

benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 75-87.

Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm

behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16, 7-25.

Covin, J.G. & Slevin, D.P. (2002). The entrepreneurial imperatives of strategic leadership. In

M.A. Hitt, R.D. Ireland, S.M. Camp, & D.L. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic

entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset (pp. 309–327). Oxford, UK: Blackwell

Publishers.

Coyne, I. T. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling;

merging or clear boundaries? Journal of advanced nursing, 26(3), 623-630.

De Clercq, D., Dimov, D., & Thongpapanl, N. T. (2013). Organizational social capital,

formalization, and internal knowledge sharing in entrepreneurial orientation

formation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(3), 505-537.

Dougherty, D., & Hardy, C. (1996). Sustained product innovation in large, mature

organizations: Overcoming innovation-to-organization problems. Academy of

Management Journal, 39(5), 1120-1153.

Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper & Row.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research.

Academy of Management Review 14 (4), 532-550.

Fayolle, A., Basso, O., & Bouchard, V. (2010). Three levels of culture and firms’

entrepreneurial orientation: A research agenda. Entrepreneurship and Regional

Development, 22(7-8), 707-730.


Foss, N. J., Lyngsie, J., & Zahra, S. A. (2014). Organizational design correlates of

entrepreneurship: The roles of decentralization and formalization for opportunity

discovery and realization. Strategic Organization.

Fry, A., 1987. The Post-It-Note: an entrepreneurial success.

SAM Adv. Manage. J. 52, 4–9 (Summer).

Gartner, W. B. (1990). What are we talking about when we talk about

entrepreneurship?. Journal of Business venturing, 5(1), 15-28.

Garud, R., & Rappa, M. A. (1994). A socio-cognitive model of technology evolution: The

case of cochlear implants. Organization Science, 5(3), 344-362.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery grounded theory:

strategies for qualitative inquiry. Aldin, Chicago.

Guth, W. D., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest editor's introduction.

Strategic management journal, 11, 5-15.

Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2001). Guest editor's introduction

to the special issue strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7),

479-492.

Holt, Daniel T., Matthew W. Rutherford, and Gretchen R. Clohessy. "Corporate

entrepreneurship: An empirical look at individual characteristics, context, and

process." Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 13.4 (2007): 40-54.

Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F., & Zahra, S.A. (2002). Middle managers’ perception of the

internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale.

Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 253–273.

Hornsby, J. S., Holt, D. T., & Kuratko, D. F. (2008). The dynamic nature of corporate

entrepreneurship: assessing the CEAI. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol.

2008, No. 1, pp. 1-6). Academy of Management

Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., Holt, D. T., & Wales, W. J. (2013). Assessing a measurement

of organizational preparedness for corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Product

Innovation Management, 30(5), 937-955.


Howell, J. M., Shea, C. M., & Higgins, C. A. (2005). Champions of product innovations:

defining, developing, and validating a measure of champion behavior. Journal of

business venturing, 20(5), 641-661.

Ireland, R.D., Covin, J.G. and Kuratko, D.F. (2009). Conceptualizing Corporate

Entrepreneurship Strategy. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 33, 19-46.

Kanter, R.M., 1985. Supporting innovation and venture development in established

companies. Journal of Business Venturing 1, 47–60.

Kanter. R. M., Richardson, L., North, J., & Morgan, E. (1991). Engines of progress:

Designing and running vehicles in established companies; The new venture process at

Eastman Kodak, 1983-1989. Journal of Business Venturing, 6. 63-82.

Kanter, R. M. (2004). The middle manager as innovator.

Harvard Business Review, 82(7/8), 150–161.

Khandwalla, P. N. (1977). The design of organizations.

New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovieh.

Kelley, D. J., Peters, L., & O'Connor, G. C. (2009). Intra-organizational networking for

innovation-based corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3),

221-235.

Kemelgor, B. H. (2002). A comparative analysis of corporate entrepreneurial orientation

between selected firms in the Netherlands and the USA. Entrepreneurship & Regional

Development, 14(1), 67-87.

Kuratko, D. F., Montagno, R. V., & Hornsby, J. S. (1990). Developing an intrapreneurial

assessment instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment.

Strategic management journal, 11, 49-58.

Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S., & Goldsby, M.G. (2004). Sustaining corporate

entrepreneurship: A proposed model of perceived implementation/outcome

comparisons at the organizational and individual levels. International Journal of

Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 5(2), 77–89.

Kuratko, D. F., Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Hornsby, J. S. (2005). A Model of Middle‐

Level Managers’ Entrepreneurial Behavior. Entrepreneurship theory and practice,

29(6), 699-716.


Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Covin, J. G. (2014). Diagnosing a firm's internal

environment for corporate entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 57(1), 37-47.

Lant, T. K., & Mezias, S. J. (1990). Managing discontinuous change: A simulation study of

organizational learning and entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5),

147-79.

Leifer, R. (2000). Radical innovation: How mature companies can outsmart upstarts.

Harvard Business Press.

Lumpkin, G. T., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2005). The role of organizational learning in the

opportunity‐recognition process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 451-

472.Lumpkin, G.T. & Dess, G.G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurship orientation

construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21, 135–

172.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.

Organization science, 2(1), 71-87.

Marvel, M. R., Griffin, A., Hebda, J., & Vojak, B. (2007). Examining the technical corporate

entrepreneurs' motivation: Voices from the field. Entrepreneurship Theory and

practice, 31(5), 753-768.Maso, I. & A. Smaling (1998). Qualitative research:

practice and theory.Amsterdam: Boom.

Miller, D. and Friesen, P. (1985). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two

models of strategic management', Strategic Management Journal, 3, pp. 1-25.

Morris, M.H. & Kuratko, D.F. (2002). Corporate entrepreneurship.

Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.

Morris, M. H., D. F. Kuratko, and J. G. Covin. (2011). Corporate entrepreneurship and

innovation. Mason, OH: Cengage/Southwestern Publishers.

Muzyka, D., De Koning, A., & Churchill, N. (1995). On transformation and adaptation:

Building the entrepreneurial corporation. European Management Journal, 13(4), 346–.

362.

Pinchot III, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring: Why you don't have to leave the corporation to

become an entrepreneur. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for

Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.


Sathe, V., 1985. Managing an entrepreneurial dilemma: nurturing entrepreneurship and

control in large corporations 636–656. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research

Babson College, Wesley, Mas.

Schein, E. H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture.

Sloan management review, 25(2), 3-16.

Schollhammer, H. (1982). Internal corporate entrepreneurship.

Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship, 209, 223.

Smart, D. T., & Conant, J. S. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation, distinctive marketing

competencies and organizational performance. Journal of Applied Business Research

(JABR), 10(3), 28-38.

Snell, S. A., & Dean, J. W. (1992). Integrated manufacturing and human resource

management: A human capital perspective. Academy of Management journal, 35(3),

467-504.

Souder, W., 1981. Encouraging entrepreneurship in large corporations.

Research Management. 24 (3), 18–22 (May).

Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types

of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450-463.

Sykes, H.B., 1992. Incentive compensation for corporate venture personnel.

Journal of Business Venturing 7, 253–265.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits,

capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle (Vol. 55). Transaction publishers.

Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research.

Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–228.

Sharma, P. and Chrisman, J.J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the

field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 11-27.

Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial

management. Strategic management journal, 11(5), 17-27.

Stopford, J. M., & Baden‐Fuller, C. W. (1994). Creating corporate entrepreneurship.

Strategic management journal, 15(7), 521-536.


Volberda, H., & Cheah, H. B. (1993). A new perspective on entrepreneurship: a dialectic

process of transformation within the entrepreneurial mode, type of flexibility and

organizational form.

Von Hippel. E. (1977). The sources of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications.

Zahra, S., Floyd, S., and Pearce, J.A. (1987). Strategy, culture and organizational

performance: relationships in one industry. Southern Management Association

Proceedings., 1. 226-228.

Zahra, S.A., (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship:

an exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6, 259–286.

Zahra, S. A. (1993). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior:

A critique and extension. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 17(4), 5-21.

Zahra, S. A. (1995). Corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: the case of .

management leveraged buyouts. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(3), 225-247.

Zahra, S.A. (1996). Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating

impact of industry technological opportunities. Academy of Management

Journal, 39(6), 1713–1735


8. Appendices

Appendix I: Questionnaire identification phase

Ondernemerschap binnen uw organisatie

Met deze eerste vragenlijst wordt geïnventariseerd op welke manier uw organisatie

ondernemend georiënteerd is, welke soorten ondernemerschap vertoond worden en op welke

markten de organisatie zich richt.

Geachte heer, mevrouw,

Graag zou ik mij eerst voorstellen. Ik ben Bas Haarhuis, master student Business

Administration en ik ben bezig met mijn master thesis. Tijdens mijn master thesis word ik

begeleid door Aard Groen. Mijn master thesis richt zich op ondernemerschap binnen

bestaande organisaties. Ondernemerschap kan verschillende vormen aannemen afhankelijk

van de strategie van de organisatie. Met deze vragenlijst wordt geïnventariseerd op welke

manier de organisatie ondernemend georiënteerd is, welke soorten ondernemerschap vertoond

worden en op welke markten de organisatie zich richt.

De resultaten worden geanonimiseerd gebruikt als input voor het onderzoeksrapport en zullen

besproken worden tijdens de NPAL bijeenkomt op 24 april. De resultaten zullen in geen geval

worden verstrekt aan derden. De naam van uw organisatie wordt alleen gebruikt om uw

organisatie specifiek inzicht te kunnen geven in de resultaten en daar een advies aan te

koppelen. In het onderzoeksrapport zal de naam van uw bedrijf geheel anoniem blijven.

Het invullen van de vragenlijst zal slechts 10 minuten duren.

Met vriendelijke groet,

Bas Haarhuis

Master student Universiteit Twente

0639463965

[email protected]

Heeft u vragen over dit onderzoek of de vragenlijst dan kunt u contact met mij opnemen.

Er zijn 24 vragen in deze enquête


Beschrijving van uw organisatie

De volgende vragen gaan over de kenmerken van uw organisatie.

Wat is de naam van uw organisatie? (als u onderdeel bent van een overkoepelende

organisatie, zou ik u willen vragen beide namen te noteren)

Vul uw antwoord hier in:

Tot welke industrietak behoort uw organisatieonderdeel?

Selecteer alle mogelijkheden:

Land- en tuinbouw

Gezondheid

Cultuur, sport en recreatie

ICT en media

Industrie

Financiële instelling

Zakelijke diensten

Bouw

Horeca

Energie, water en milieu

Groothandel

Logistiek

Detailhandel

Overig


Het ondernemend gedrag van uw organisatie

Er worden hieronder een aantal stellingen gegeven die gaan over het ondernemend gedrag van

uw organisatie. Het is de bedoeling dat u de stelling afmaakt en aangeeft hoe sterk u zich kunt

vinden in één van de twee stellingen.

In het algemeen geven de topmanagers van uw organisatieonderdeel de voorkeur aan...

Kies het toepasselijk antwoord voor elk onderdeel:

1 2 3 4 5

een sterke

nadruk op

marketing van

geteste en

daadwerkelijk

geïntroduceerde

producten en/of

services.

een sterke

nadruk op

onderzoek en

ontwikkeling,

technologisch

leiderschap

en innovatie.

Hoeveel nieuwe producten of services heeft uw organisatieonderdeel op de markt

gebracht in de afgelopen 5 jaar?


1 2 3 4 5

Geen nieuwe

producten

en/of services.

Heel veel

producten

en/of services.

Veranderingen

in producten

en/of services

zijn meestal

van kleine

aard.

Veranderingen

in producten

en/of services

waren meestal

drastisch.


Uw organisatieonderdeel gaat als volgt om met haar concurrenten...


1 2 3 4 5

reageert met

name op acties

die

concurrenten

uitvoeren.

voert meestal

acties uit

waarop

concurrenten

vervolgens

reageren.

is zelden de

eerste

organisatie die

nieuwe

producten,

administratieve

technieken,

operationele

technologieën

etc.

introduceert.

is heel vaak de

eerste

organisatie die

nieuwe

producten,

administratieve

technieken,

operationele

technologieën

etc.

introduceert.

ontwijkt

meestal

competitieve

botsingen,

waarbij een

‘laten en laten

leven’ houding

wordt

aangenomen.

is de

organisatie

sterk

competitief,

waarbij een

‘maak de

concurrentie

ongedaan’

houding wordt

aangenomen.


In het algemeen zijn de topmanagers van uw organisatieonderdeel…


1 2 3 4 5

sterk

geneigd

projecten te

kiezen met

een laag

risico (met

normale en

zekere

inkomsten).

sterk

geneigd

projecten te

kiezen met

een hoog

risico (met

de kans op

heel hoge

inkomsten).

In het algemeen geloven de topmanagers van uw organisatieonderdeel dat…


1 2 3 4 5

gezien de

aard van de

omgeving

het, het

beste is om

de

omgeving

geleidelijk

te

verkennen

door

middel van

schuw en

stapsgewijs

gedrag.

gezien de

aard van

de

omgeving

gedurfde,

breed

opgezette

acties

nodig zijn

om de

doelen van

de

organisatie

te halen.


Wanneer uw organisatieonderdeel wordt geconfronteerd met beslissingen waarin

onzekerheid een rol speelt, dan neemt uw organisatieonderdeel…


1 2 3 4 5

een erg

voorzichtige

en

afwachtende

houding aan

om de kans op

dure

beslissingen te

minimaliseren.

een erg

gedurfde,

agressieve

houding aan

om de kans op

het kunnen

exploiteren

van potentiële

kansen te

maximaliseren.


Appendix II: Interview protocol

(1) Introductie interviewer: (5 min)

a. Ik ben Bas Haarhuis, 23 jaar oud en ik ben een student van de universiteit

Twente. Op dit moment ben ik bezig met het afronden van mijn master

bedrijfskunde in de vorm van een Master Thesis. Voor mijn Master Thesis ben

ik bezig met een onderzoek over corporate entrepreneurship (CE).

b. Dit onderzoek richt zich op de interne omgeving van de organisatie die CE kan

stimuleren. Ik ben in maart begonnen met dit onderzoek en mijn eerste doel

was het analyseren van de bedrijven aangesloten bij NPAL op basis van hoe

CE ze zijn. Op basis van deze analyse heb ik een aantal organisaties

uitgekozen om mijn case-studies te houden. Deze organisatie is een van die

organisaties. Het interview dat ik met u ga houden zal semi gestructureerd zijn

en bestaat uit de volgende onderwerpen (het onderwerp CE, het project, de

aspecten van interne omgeving en de vragenlijst). Verder wil ik benadrukken

dat dit interview anoniem is en vertrouwelijk zal worden behandeld. Daarom

zou ik u willen vragen of ik dit interview mag opnemen. In mijn master thesis

zal ik hooguit geanonimiseerd uw woorden citeren mits u daar toestemming

voor geeft.

(2) Introductie geïnterviewde. (5min)

a. Kunt u zichzelf introduceren? (leeftijd, werkervaring binnen het bedrijf,

functie)

(3) Het onderwerp “corporate entrepreneurship” (ondernemerschap binnen bestaande

bedrijven) (5 min)

a. Wat verstaat u onder CE?

b. Bij geen antwoord: CE bestaat uit drie vormen, namelijk: innovatie, nieuwe

business creatie en strategische vernieuwing. In dit onderzoek richt ik mij op

nieuwe business creatie binnen de bestaande organisatie. Er wordt hier dus

geen bedrijf overgenomen of een nieuw bedrijf opgestart buiten de bestaande

organisatie. Het gaat hier om ideeën en projecten die leiden tot nieuwe

producten of technologieën die een nieuwe markt kunnen creëren, of die nieuw

zijn binnen de bestaande markt. (voorbeeld toyota prius)

c. Bij antwoord afwijkend van mijn definitie: Zou het ook kunnen betekenen dat

je nieuwe producten of technologieën ontwikkeld die een nieuwe markt kunnen

creëren? Of die nieuw zijn voor een bestaande markt?

(4) Het project ( voor het een betere identificatie van het project) (10 min)

a. Kunt u het project omschrijven?

b. In welke mate is dit project in lijn met de core business van uw organisatie?

c. In welke mate leidt dit project tot nieuwe producten of technologieën waarmee

de organisatie een nieuwe markt creëert?


d. In welke mate leidt dit project tot nieuwe producten of technologieën die nieuw

zijn voor de bestaande markt van de organisatie?

e. In welke mate gaat dit project over bestaande producten of technologieën die

een (voor de organisatie) nieuwe markt betreden.

f. In welke mate denkt u dat dit project kan worden gezien als CE? Waarom?

(5) Aspecten van de interne omgeving (stimulerende aspecten en obstakels) (20 min)

a. Kunt u de 3 hoofdaspecten van de interne omgeving benoemen die de

ontwikkeling van het project promoten?

(vul in op invulblad)(indien CE project ga eerst verder bij d. Vraag

vervolgens bij d, wat mogelijke obstakels zijn die dit projecten

verhinderen. )

b. Heeft u naast dit project, weet van andere projecten of ideeën die hebben geleid

tot producten of technologieën die een nieuwe markt kunnen creëren of nieuw

zijn voor de markt?

c. Indien ja, welke aspecten van de interne omgeving waren belangrijk voor de

ontwikkeling van deze projecten?

(vul in op invulblad)

Vraag vervolgens bij d, wat mogelijke obstakels waren die ideeën of

projecten verhinderen.

d. Indien nee, wat is de reden dat dit soort projecten of ideeën niet aanwezig zijn?

Kunt u mogelijke obstakels van de interne omgeving noemen die de

ontwikkeling van dit soort projecten/ ideeën verhinderen?

(vul in op invulblad)

(indien CE project of antwoord gegeven op c ga verder naar e. )

Anders ga verder naar f

e. Vanuit de literatuur bekende, maar niet genoemde aspecten; U heeft een

aantal aspecten genoemd die de ontwikkeling van projecten stimuleren maar

volgens de literatuur is bekend dat:

De ondersteuning van management belangrijk is in de ontwikkeling van ideeën

en projecten, hoe gaat dit in uw organisatie? hoe beïnvloed dit ideeën en

projecten die leiden tot producten of technologieën die nieuwe markten kunnen

creëren of nieuw zijn voor de markt?

Autonomie en vrijheid in werkzaamheden belangrijk zijn voor …


Niet financiële beloningen zoals erkenning of meer verantwoordelijk is

belangrijk voor…

Financiële beloningen kunnen stimulerend werken voor…

Voldoende middelen zoals tijd, geld en grondstoffen zijn belangrijk voor…

Kunnen netwerken met andere collega’s over bijvoorbeeld kennis is belangrijk

voor…

De focus op lange termijn doelen zoals strategische doelen is belangrijk voor…

Een structuur met decentrale beslissingsbevoegdheid, weinig procedures,

horizontale communicatie is belangrijk voor…

Een formele systeem die ideeën evalueert, selecteert en het verdere proces

structureert is belangrijk voor…

Strategische legitimatie voor het project of idee is belangrijk voor…

(vul aanvullende aspecten in op invulblad)

f. Niet genoemde obstakels: (vervolg op d. en als optie indien sommige aspecten

nog niet genoemd zijn en dus misschien obstakels kunnen zijn)

U heeft een aantal obstakels genoemd die dat soort ideeën en projecten

verhinderen, maar volgens de literatuur zijn er een aantal aspecten bekend die

kunnen stimuleren, maar bij afwezigheid obstakels kunnen zijn.

Merkt u bijvoorbeeld:

Geen/onvoldoende management support? En hoe verhinderd dat ideeën of

projecten die leiden tot producten of technologieën die nieuwe markten kunnen

creëren of nieuw zijn voor de markt?

Geen/ onvoldoende autonomie of vrijheid in werkgelegenheid? En hoe…

Geen/ onvoldoende beloning zoals er erkenning of meer verantwoordelijkheid?

En hoe…

Geen/ onvoldoende middelen zoals tijd/ geld of grondstoffen? En hoe…

Niet/ onvoldoende kunnen netwerken met andere mensen over bijvoorbeeld

kennis? En hoe…

Geen/ weinig lange termijn oriëntatie zoals strategische doelen? En hoe…

Een structuur met centrale beslissingsbevoegdheid, veel procedures, verticale

communicatie, veel bureaucratie? En hoe…

Geen formeel systeem dat ideeën evalueert, selecteert en het verdere proces

structureert? En hoe…

Geen strategische legitimatie voor het project? En hoe…

(vul aanvullende obstakels in op invulblad)


(6) Als er tijd over is:

a. We hebben het net gehad over een aantal aspecten. Welke van de door u

genoemde aspecten zijn volgens u noodzakelijk voor het ontwikkelen van

ideeën of projecten die leiden tot producten of technologieën die een nieuwe

markt kunnen creëren of nieuw zijn voor de markt?

b. Welke van de door u genoemde aspecten zijn volgens u stimulerend, maar niet

noodzakelijk voor het ontwikkelen van ideeën of projecten die leiden tot

producten of technologieën die een nieuwe markt kunnen creëren of nieuw zijn

voor de markt?

(7) De vragenlijst (15 min)

Invulblad:

Promoot (normaal) project

Aspect: Promoot

project:

Ondersteuning van management

Autonomie/vrijheid in werkzaamheden

Beloningen (niet financieel) (erkenning)

Beloningen (financieel)

Middelen zoals tijd of geld, kennis

Netwerken

Lange termijn tijdsoriëntatie (focus op strategische doelen)

Organische structuur. Decentrale beslissing bevoegdheid/ informeel, weinig

procedures/ horizontale communicatie/

Formele/systematische manier van het proces structureren. (begint al bij het

evalueren en selecteren van ideeën.

Strategische legitimatie


Promoot overige CE ideeën of projecten

Aspect: Promoot

project:






Netwerken








Geen CE projecten door: of Verhinderd project:

Aspect: Verhinderd

project:






Netwerken








Appendix III: Questionnaire assessment phase

Vragenlijst “interne omgeving”

Geachte heer/ mevrouw,

Deze vragenlijst is een aanvulling op het interview en gaat over de interne omgeving van uw

organisatie. De resultaten zullen geanonimiseerd gebruikt worden in mijn onderzoeksrapport.

De vragenlijst bestaat uit 77 items en het invullen duurt ongeveer 15 minuten.

Vertelt u ons meer over de ondersteuning van het management…

De volgende stellingen gaan over de ondersteuning die u krijgt van het management. Geef aan

in welke mate u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen.

1. Mijn organisatieonderdeel neemt verbeterde werkmethoden snel in

gebruik.

1 2 3 4 5

2. Mijn organisatieonderdeel is snel met het in gebruik nemen van

verbeterde werkmethoden die ontwikkeld zijn door werknemers.

1 2 3 4 5

3. Het ontwikkelen van eigen ideeën ter verbetering van de organisatie,

wordt aangemoedigd door mijn organisatieonderdeel.

1 2 3 4 5

4. Het topmanagement is ontvankelijk voor mijn ideeën en suggesties. 1 2 3 4 5

5. Het ontwikkelen van nieuwe innovatieve ideeën wordt vaak gevolgd

door promotie.

1 2 3 4 5

6. De werknemers die uit zichzelf met nieuwe, innovatieve ideeën komen

worden vaak aangemoedigd bij hun activiteiten door het management.

1 2 3 4 5

7. De “doeners” worden toegestaan om, zonder uitgebreide rechtvaardiging

en goedkeuringsprocedures, beslissingen te maken over hun projecten.

1 2 3 4 5

8. Senior managers moedigen innovators aan om flexibel met regels en

vaststaande procedures om te gaan om veelbelovende ideeën op het goede

spoor te houden.

1 2 3 4 5

9. Veel topmanagers zijn bekend om hun ervaring met het innovatieproces. 1 2 3 4 5

10. Er is vaak geld beschikbaar om nieuwe projectideeën van de grond te

krijgen.

1 2 3 4 5

11. Werknemers met succesvolle innovatieve projecten ontvangen, naast

het standaard beloningsysteem, extra beloningen en compensaties voor hun

ideeën en inspanningen.

1 2 3 4 5

12. Voor werknemers zijn er verschillende opties binnen de organisatie om

financiële ondersteuning te krijgen voor hun innovatieve projecten en

ideeën.

1 2 3 4 5


13. Werknemers die risico’s nemen krijgen vaak herkenning voor hun

bereidheid om op te komen voor nieuwe projecten of ze nou succesvol zijn

of niet.

1 2 3 4 5

14. Werknemers worden vaak aangemoedigd om gecalculeerde risico’s te

nemen met nieuwe ideeën die hier spelen.

1 2 3 4 5

15. De term “risico nemer” wordt beschouwd als positieve eigenschap voor

werknemers in mijn werkgebied.

1 2 3 4 5

16. Dit organisatieonderdeel ondersteunt veel kleine en experimentele

projecten en is ervan bewust dat er zonder twijfel een aantal zullen falen.

1 2 3 4 5

17. Een werknemer met een goed idee krijgt vaak vrije tijd om dat idee

verder te ontwikkelen.

1 2 3 4 5

18. Er is een groot verlangen onder de werknemers in dit

organisatieonderdeel om nieuwe ideeën te genereren zonder dat er rekening

wordt gehouden met het overschrijden van functionele- en

afdelingsgrenzen.

1 2 3 4 5

19. Werknemers worden aangemoedigd om te praten met werknemers van

andere afdelingen over ideeën voor nieuwe projecten..

1 2 3 4 5

Vertelt u ons meer over autonomie en de vrijheid in uw werkzaamheden…

De volgende stellingen gaan over de autonomie en de mate van vrijheid in uw

werkzaamheden. Geef aan in welke mate u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen.

20. Ik heb het gevoel dat ik mijn eigen baas ben en niet al mijn

beslissingen dubbel hoef te controleren.

1 2 3 4 5

21. Harde kritiek is vaak het gevolg van gemaakte fouten in het werk. 1 2 3 4 5

22 . Mijn organisatieonderdeel biedt de kans om creatief te zijn en mijn

eigen werkmethoden uit te proberen om het werk uit te voeren.

1 2 3 4 5

23. Mijn organisatieonderdeel biedt mij de vrijheid om op mijn eigen

oordeel af te gaan.

1 2 3 4 5

24. Mijn organisatieonderdeel biedt kansen om dingen te doen zodat ik

gebruik maak van mijn capaciteiten.

1 2 3 4 5

25. Het is vooral mijn eigen verantwoordelijkheid om te beslissen hoe ik

mijn werk gedaan krijg.

1 2 3 4 5

26. Ik kan bijna altijd beslissen wat ik doe op mijn werk. 1 2 3 4 5

27. Ik heb veel autonomie op mijn werk en ik word alleen gelaten om mijn 1 2 3 4 5


werk te doen.

28. Ik moet zelden de zelfde werkmethoden of stappen volgen om mijn

belangrijkste dagelijkse taken uit te voeren.

1 2 3 4 5

Vertelt u ons meer over de beloningen van uw organisatieonderdeel…

De volgende stellingen gaan over de beloningen van uw organisatieonderdeel. Geef aan in

welke mate u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen.

29. Mijn manager helpt mij om mijn werk gedaan te krijgen door het

verwijderen van obstakels.

1 2 3 4 5

30. De beloningen die ik ontvang zijn afhankelijk van mijn

werkzaamheden op het werk.

1 2 3 4 5

31. Mijn manager zal de verantwoordelijkheid van mijn werkzaamheden

vergroten als ik goed presteer op mijn werk.

1 2 3 4 5

32. Mijn manager zal mij speciale erkenning geven als mijn werkprestatie

erg goed is.

1 2 3 4 5

33. Mijn manager verteld het zijn gezaghebbende als ik exceptioneel goed

werk heb geleverd.

1 2 3 4 5

34. Werknemers met succesvolle innovatieve projecten ontvangen naast het

standaard beloningssysteem extra financiële compensatie voor hun ideeën

en inspanning.

1 2 3 4 5

35. Er zijn verschillende opties in de organisatie voor werknemers om

financiële beloningen te krijgen gebaseerd op het extra risico dat ze lopen

door hun innovatieve projecten en ideeën.

1 2 3 4 5

36. In mijn organisatie zijn de financiële beloningen gebaseerd op het

verwezenlijken van mijlpalen in innovatieve projecten

1 2 3 4 5

Vertelt u ons meer over de beschikbaarheid van tijd en middelen binnen uw

organisatieonderdeel…

De volgende stellingen gaan over de beschikbaarheid van tijd en andere middelen binnen uw

organisatieonderdeel. Geef aan in welke mate u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen.

37. De afgelopen 3 maanden was mijn werkdruk te hoog om tijd te

spenderen aan het ontwikkelen van nieuwe ideeën.

1 2 3 4 5


38. Ik heb altijd genoeg tijd om alles gedaan te krijgen. 1 2 3 4 5

39. Ik heb precies de juiste hoeveelheid tijd en werkdruk om alles goed

te doen.

1 2 3 4 5

40. Mijn baan is gestructureerd zodat ik weinig tijd heb om te denken

over problemen die organisatie breed zijn.

1 2 3 4 5

41. Ik heb het gevoel dat ik altijd te maken heb met tijdsdruk op mijn

werk

1 2 3 4 5

42. Mijn collega’s en ik vinden altijd de tijd om problemen op te lossen

voor de lange termijn.

1 2 3 4 5

43. In mijn organisatieonderdeel worden innovatieve projecten en ideeën

voorzien van de middelen die nodig zijn.

1 2 3 4 5

Vertelt u ons meer over netwerken binnen uw organisatieonderdeel…

De volgende stellingen gaan over netwerken binnen uw organisatieonderdeel. Geef aan in

welke mate u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen.

44. Onze werknemers zijn zeer bekwaam. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

45. Onze werknemers worden in het algemeen beschouwd als het

beste in onze sector.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

46. Onze werknemers zijn creatief en scherpzinnig. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

47. Onze werknemers zijn expert in hun werk en functie. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

48. Onze werknemers ontwikkelen nieuwe ideeën en kennis. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

49. Onze werknemers zijn bekwaam in het samenwerken met

elkaar, diagnoses stellen en het oplossen van problemen.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

50. Onze werknemers wisselen ideeën uit met werknemers van

verschillende afdelingen in de organisatie.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

51. Onze werknemers werken samen met klanten, leveranciers,

partners etc. om oplossingen te ontwikkelen.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

52. Onze werknemers passen de kennis uit het ene onderdeel van de

organisatie toe bij de problemen en kansen die in het andere

onderdeel ontstaan.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Vertelt u ons meer over de tijdsoriëntatie van uw organisatieonderdeel…

De volgende stellingen gaan over de tijdsoriëntatie van uw organisatieonderdeel. De volgende

twee onderwerpen komen aanbod: financiële doelstellingen en strategische doelstellingen. In

welke mate worden de volgende doelstellingen gebruikt om uw organisatieprestaties te

managen en evalueren? Kruis het antwoord aan dat de situatie in uw organisatieonderdeel het

best weergeeft in de afgelopen 3 jaar.

53. Geldstromen (cashflows) 1 2 3 4 5

54. Rendement op investering. 1 2 3 4 5

55. Objectieve criteria zoals, redendement op bezittingen. 1 2 3 4 5

56. Formele functioneringsgesprekken. 1 2 3 4 5

57. Formele face-to-face bijeenkomsten tussen managers om de

organisatie prestaties te bespreken.

1 2 3 4 5

58. Informele face-to-face bijeenkomsten tussen managers om de

realisatie van organisatiedoelstellingen te evalueren.

1 2 3 4 5

59. Er worden subjectieve criteria gebruikt, zoals klanttevredenheid,

om de organisatieprestaties te evalueren.

1 2 3 4 5

Vertelt u ons meer over de management filosofie van uw organisatieonderdeel…

De volgende stellingen geven de mogelijke structuur en management filosofie van uw

organisatieonderdeel aan. Het is de bedoeling dat u de stelling afmaakt en aangeeft hoe sterk u

zich kunt vinden in een van de twee stellingen.

In het algemeen wordt de management filosofie in dit bedrijfsonderdeel het meest getypeerd

door…

60. Zeer gestructureerde

communicatiekanalen en zeer

beperkte toegang tot financiële

en operationele informatie.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Open communicatiekanalen

waarbij belangrijke financiële en

operationele informatie vrij

gemakkelijk door dit

bedrijfsonderdeel stroomt.

61. Een sterke nadruk op een

uniforme management stijl

van dit bedrijfsonderdeel.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Een managers stijl die vrijuit

varieert van zeer formeel tot zeer

informeel.

62. Een sterke nadruk op 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Een sterke neiging om de expert


formele lijn managers die de

meeste zeggenschap hebben in

het maken van beslissing.

in een bepaalde situatie de meeste

zeggenschap te geven voor het

maken van beslissingen, zelfs als

dit betekent dat de formele

autoriteit gepasseerd wordt.

63. Een sterkte nadruk op het

vasthouden aan oude

management principes,

ondanks veranderingen in de

organisatiecondities.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Een sterke nadruk op het

aanpassen aan veranderende

omstandigheden zonder te veel

aandacht op management

principes uit het verleden.

64. Een sterke nadruk op het

volgen van formele

procedures door onze

werknemers.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Een sterke nadruk op dingen

gedaan krijgen, zelfs als dit

betekent dat formele procedures

buiten beschouwing worden

gelaten.

65. Strakke formele controle

van de meeste

werkzaamheden door middel

van geavanceerde informatie

controle systemen.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Losse, informele controle, zwaar

afhankelijk van informele

verhoudingen met vooral de

nadruk op het afkrijgen van het

werk.

66. Een sterke nadruk op de

formele functieomschrijvingen

bij het toezicht houden op lijn-

en ondersteunende

werknemers.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Een sterke tendens waarbij het

gedrag tijdens het werk bepaald

wordt door de situatie en de

persoonlijkheid van de

werknemer.

Vertelt u ons meer over administratieve systemen binnen uw

organisatieonderdeel…

De volgende stellingen gaan over administratieve systemen binnen uw organisatieonderdeel.

Geef aan in welke mate u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen.

67. In mijn organisatie is er een systematische manier voor het evalueren,

selecteren en implementeren van ideeën.

1 2 3 4 5

68. In mijn organisatie zijn er controle systemen voor het evalueren,

selecteren en implementeren van ideeën.

1 2 3 4 5

Einde van de vragenlijst. Bedankt voor het invullen!


Appendix IV: Cronbach alpha’s questionnaire assessment phase

Table 14. Cronbach alpha’s questionnaire assessment phase.

Construct Cronbach alpha

level

Items

removed

Remaining

items

Management support

.870 2 19

Work discretion/autonomy

.641 2 9

Rewards

.823 0 5

Financial rewards*

.809 0 5

Resources

.657 2 7

Resources networking

.839 0 9

Time orientation (short-

term)

.621 1 3

Time orientation (long-term)

.568 1 2

Organicity (structure)

.769 0 7

Administrative mechanisms .975 0 2

* 2 items of management support are added, both reflecting financial rewards (see Hornsby et

al., 2013).


Appendix V: Operationalization of the codes

Table 15. Operationalization of the codes.

Codebook

Theme Sub-theme Sub-sub-

theme

Operationalization Code

Culture-

related factors

Managemen

t support

Facilitating and promoting

entrepreneurial activities in the

organization by top management,

including championing innovative

ideas as well as providing

necessary resources, expertise or

protection. It also includes

supporting risk taking and

creativity.

Culture-

mngtsup

Work

discretion/a

utonomy

Delegation of authority and

responsibilities, providing

decision-making freedom and

freedom from extreme supervision

and the willingness of top-level

managers to tolerate failure.

Culture-

workdis

Time

orientation

Long term

orientation

Long-term goals such as strategic

goals.

Culture-

LTorien

Short term

orientation

Short-term goals such as return on

assets, return on investments and

cash-flows.

Culture-

Storien


Structure-

related factors

Organic

structure

Flat organization, short lines,

large degree of informality,

horizontal communication, and

decentralized decision making.

Structure-

organic

Administrat

ive

mechanisms

Systematic evaluating, selecting,

and implementation of ideas.

Structure-

systems

Reward

systems

Reward

systems

Financial

rewards

The incentive structure which

includes financial incentives such

as additional risk rewards.

Reward-

Finrew

Non-

financial

rewards

Non-financial incentives such as

recognition, promotion, positive

feedback, and more responsibility.

Reward-

Nonfinrew

Resources

Resources Time

availability,

money,

other

resources

The availability of time, financial

resources, knowledge, and

knowledge sharing. Furthermore,

resources in the broadest sense,

needed for any project.

Resources-

TimeAv

Resources-

Money

Resources-

Other

Networking Acquisition of required

information, knowledge and

skills, access to resources;

includes also the “quality” of

people involved. Human capital

and social capital.

Resources-

Networking

Strategic

legitimation

Approval for corporate

entrepreneurial processes

depending on the strategy, and

management choices.

Strategic-

leg


Appendix VI: The codebooks of the four cases

The extent of a certain factor is given before the phrase; (3) indicates factor is present to a

large extent, (2) indicates factor is present to moderate extent, and (1) indicates factors is

present to a small extent.

(#1) indicates phrase from respondent 1.

Table 16. Codebook TechServCo.

Obstructive: Stimulating:

Factors/code:

Culture-

mngtsup

- (3) “The management facilitates

ideas, projects or NB with time and

money. We have some workgroups

IA and predictive maintenance and

the employees involved get 6 or 8

hours per week and an amount of

money to develop these NB.”(#1)

(3) “We have set up our own

leadership program to help

managers stimulate this kind of

developments (e.g. NB). To help the

manager choose between priorities

and get their employees in the same

direction.”(#2)

Culture-

workdis

(3) “There is a lot of freedom and

autonomy by our employees but

that does not always stimulate the

project because those employees

have their own freedom to choose

between the client and the

workgroup (e.g. IA) and if they

always choose for the client they

cannot work for 6 hours per week

on the workgroup. That stagnates

the project.”(#1)

(2) “However, we as MT have set

more priorities and since two years

we see a change in our

organization.”(#1)

(3) “The freedom of employees can

(3) “The freedom and autonomy I

perceive stimulates me to work on

the project. I do not have to wait on

others, I can just go. I do not like

working in a restricted project so for

me this stimulates al lot.”(#1)

(3) “Our people have a large extent

of freedom and you do not get

punished for mistakes if you see

them as a development of

yourself.”(#2)

(3) “We do not have certain job

descriptions but we work more in

roles. That gives you the opportunity

to get a broader perspective.”(#2)


work sometimes obstructive

because this company is very client

oriented, and if employees get an

interesting question from clients,

they sometimes take more time for

the client than for the NB

workgroup. The freedom in

decision making can work

obstructive.”(#2)

(3) “Too much freedom sometimes

results in hobbyism because people

are too much interested in the

interesting client question rather

than commercial purposes.”(#3)

(3) “Employees have the freedom to

invest time in; learning employees

from other discipline groups,

knowledge and to develop ideas, new

services”(#3)

(3) “Employees like to work here

because they get a lot of freedom to

come with ideas and that stimulates

the generation of ideas and

development of projects.”(#4)

Culture-

LTorien

- (3) “We have a long-term

orientation with our organization.

The strategy, mission and vision are

evaluated every three year.”(#1)

(3) “Our company is connected with

an investment company, however,

this investment company has a long-

term vision and that gives our

company also the freedom to have a

long-term vision.”(#1)

(3) “There is a long-term focus, we

even close projects at clients with

zero profit and we do that conscious,

because we want to learn from that

client, so that we can do our projects

better later on. We do not get

nervous if we close a year with

lower profits.”(#2)

(3) “There is always a tiny balance

between profit on the short-term and

investment on the long-term;

however in this field of tension we

focus on the long-term. That is the

red string, but something we short

focus on short-term to end a year

with profit, but that does not

obstruct the long-term.”(#3)


4Back in the day employees had so much freedom that almost everyone had contact with the client. Therefore, a

lot of small Ltd.’s within the company were founded, because employees had their own little contracts with

them.

Culture-

Storien

- -

Structure-

organic

(3) “The structure is very loose and

in combination with a lot of

freedom and autonomy at

employees can work sometimes

obstructive because they want to

work for their own little Ltd4. and

therefore have other things on their

mind. This is changing a little bit,

however, employees are used to

have a lot of freedom so that is

difficult and stagnated sometimes

the development of a project.”(#1)

(3) “On one hand works the

organic structure in our advantage

because we have a lot of ideas,

good services and creativity,

however, because we do not have

much structure, there sometimes is

also some ambiguity and has

everyone agreements with the

client. This result in double work or

work which is not done.”(#3)

(3) “We have to look out that in this

open organization the work gets

done. At one hand this stimulates

creativity and challenging each

other, but it also result in too many

employees involved by a project or

that too few employees are actually

working on a project.”(#4)

(3) “The loose structure also

stimulates entrepreneurship.”(#1)

(3) “The structure is very flat,

however we have since a year more

managers and that stimulates

because there is more structure so

everything is more careful and the

velocity of circulation of knowledge

and information is not delayed by

that. It also results in more dynamic

and that stimulates the

projects.”(#1)

(3) “Our structure is very flat and

we work over different areas, in fact

we work where work is. It looks

fuzzy, but that is not true, it

stimulates cross fertilization and that

stimulates the velocity of

projects.”(#1)

(2) “We now try to structure our

organic structure and projects with

the 10 commandments of how we

doing projects around here.”(#3)


Structure-

systems

(1) “A lot of ideas are for our

clients and without a certain system

we sometimes do not know about

value-creation ideas but we

actually deliver value at the client.

It also results in missed

changes.”(#2)

(1) “Sometimes we miss the

benchmark or criteria in e.g. or

discipline groups, because they

invest a lot hours in development,

but there is not a measured output,

although I know that they have a lot

of output. However, we need more

criteria in this kind of groups to

measure the investment

potential.”(3)

(1) “There is not a system to

evaluate ideas, projects or NB, there

are no key points. That process is

automatic. This stimulates because it

is similar to start ups, they believe in

it, got money and go for it”(#1)

(2) “It is depends on our managers

if a project is very structured and

that can work obstructive, on the

other hand, our leadership program

stimulates the use of milestones in

projects.”(#2)

(2) “We try to prioritize the ideas

and initiatives now and that helps a

lot. We do that by thinking every

time to our mission, vision, and

strategy, and use that as

criterion.”(#3)

Reward-

Finrew

- (1) “We do not have extra financial

rewards only for some managerial

positions.”(#1)

(1) “We have a normal salary

structure, but no additional rewards;

because we believe that intrinsic

motivation is important.” (#2)

Reward-

Nonfinrew

- (3) “We reward our employees in

non-financial ways as team trips,

compliments, more

responsibilities.”(#1)

(3) “We see development of our

people in terms of training also as a

reward.”(#2)

Resources-

TimeAv

(2) “There is not enough time,

however the MT reserves time for

e.g. NB workgroup, but if

employees choose the client,

sometimes the amount of time is

obstructive.”(#2)

(3) “Employees get time for NB in

their work groups and in department

groups they have time to think about

their own ideas and

disciplines.”(#1)


Resources-

Money

- (3) “Our workgroups receive a

certain amount of money to develop

NB e.g. IA or predictive

maintenance.”(#1)

(3) “There is a lot of money

available for development so that

cannot be an obstructive

factor.”(#3)

Resources-

Networking

- (3) “Networking in our company is

very easy and the organization

stimulates it a lot. There are work

meetings where e.g. business

administration employees present to

each other how they have worked at

different clients. So there is a lot of

dynamic and knowledge

sharing.”(#1)

(3) “Networking is easy if you need

knowledge, because there are no

barriers. Furthermore, there are

interdisciplinary projects which

stimulate networking and we have

masterclasses for our people, alumni

and some clients. In addition we also

have discipline workgroups to

stimulate networking.”(#2)

Resources-

Other

- (3) “For one part of growth I recruit

new people to let the organization

see that it an important project and

to get more knowledge insight of the

company, and for the other part I

will use our own people”(#1)

Strategic- leg - (3) “NB will get strategic

legitimation if it is in line with our

core business, predictive

maintenance for example. That does

not mean that it is not new for us,

but the approach is the same.”(#1)


(3) “Strategic legitimation is not

dependent on time-orientation;

however long-term orientation is

more stimulated.”(#1)

Other: (1) (goal clarity) “Not clearly

knowing where we go with an NB

opportunity, because it is new for

us.”(#2)

(3) “I try to promote my own project

by doing a little PR, to involve

people in this project and to let them

see the usefulness of this

project.”(#1)

(3) “I ask in work meetings to our

young business administration

employees that I seek people for the

IA project and they are enthusiastic

and they see the usefulness of this

project.”(#1)

(2) “Sometimes working on an

infeasible project with organization

width employees, and then achieve

your goals, work very stimulating for

the whole organization. The

organization should do that every

year.”(#2)

(3) “We motivate and challenge

each other and that lead to the

generation of a lot of ideas.”(#3)

(3) “Ownership is an important

factor for entrepreneurship because

then you have the freedom for a

long-term focus and that gives the

space for NB initiatives”. (#4)


Table 17. Codebook BuilderCo.


Factors/code:

Culture-mngtsup - (3) “If you dare to put your head

above the cornfield, it will be

appreciated. This is a key point of

BuilderCo. That will be

supported.”(#1)

(3) “The creative mind of people and

finding NB will be appreciated and

stimulated.”(#1)

(3) “If I have a good argumentation

for something new, than the

management will give me support

and stimulation. (#2)

(3) “The manager sales give his

attention to this market and thus

support the employees which are

involved in this project.”(#3)

(2) “At this project the payback

period is longer and on one hand I

get support for this project because

everybody knows that it is important

however if results are taking too

long we fall back in old

projects.”(#4)

Culture-workdis - (3) “Our organization provides a lot

of freedom to find new ideas. If you

can define these ideas in a good

way, you have the possibilities to

work on it. There is no obstacle for

proposing ideas.”(#1)

(3) “There is a lot of freedom to

perform your job” (2)

(3) “Our department is very

autonomous.”(#3)

Culture-LTorien (1) “There is long-term -


orientation but there is priority

on the short-term so that often

gives stagnation on long-term

projects.” (#2)

Culture-Storien (3) “The focus is on the short

term and therefore there is not a

lot time and money left for

projects and ideas on the long-

term.”(#1)

(3) “The focus is mainly on the

short-term orientation and

results from an investment

company being on top of our

group structure. So the focus is

on financial controls. This is

also a result because there is a

possibility for us to go public

and then financial facts are

key.”(#1)

(3) “The projects with a short

payback period get

priority.”(#1)

(2) “On this moment the time

orientation is on the short-term

but our strategy is for the long-

term”(#2)

(3) “There is more focus on

short-term financial goals than

on strategic long- term goals.

(#4)

-

Structure-organic - (3) “It is not only the stimulating

management, but also the flat

structure is an important factor

because therefore there can be

quickly switched and things can be

realized very fast”(#1)

(3) “Working in teams with different

disciplines and a product champion

stimulates the velocity of a project or

idea in or organization”(#1)


(3) “The flat structure result in fast

feedback and al lot of

communication about my project or

idea”(#1)

(3) “The structure of our

organization is very flat, there are

short lines and there is a lot of

decentralized decision making and

that stimulates projects because

there is a lot of communication and

therefore you can switch very easy”.

(#2)

(3) “It is easy to walk in by other

employees to communicate and you

do not have to ask permission to

managers and that simulates

because you can be very fast.”(#3)

(3) “We have a very flat structure,

short lines and the door of the CEO

is always open, so that simulates the

development of projects.”(#4)

Structure-

systems

- (1“There is not a rigid system for

evaluating ideas, I make a business

case of my idea and then I evaluate

it with the CEO and my manager,

and mostly the criteria circle around

the low-hanging fruit potential”#(2)

(1) “Ideas are evaluated with the

CEO’s but there is no such system

for it or key factors to evaluate

them.” (#1)

(1) “There are no very rigid key

factors for the evaluation of ideas or

projects, it depends on the project,

but we evaluate it with different

disciplines like marketing, sales and

R&D.” (#3)

(2) “We work here with NP

introduction; this is a structured

approach for project with


milestones. We call is game plan.”

(#1)

(2) “There are milestones in the

project where we evaluate whether it

is useful to go on” (#1)

(2) “We work here with game plan,

which plans how we going to

develop initiatives and described

what is needed from who.”(#3)

Reward-Finrew - (2) “Projects should generate

additional turnover, if that

additional turnover is achieved, I

will receive a part of my bonus

structure.”(#1)

(1) “There are no additional

financial rewards at BuilderCo, and

that is also not necessary”(#2)

(1) “There is not a certain bonus

structure, by high exception you can

get an extra bonus, but that is not

project related.”(#3)

Reward-

Nonfinrew

- (3) “I get verbal compliments when I

do something good for the team or

project.”(#1)

(3) “It is not always practical to give

people more responsibility because

at some point you will reach the

management chair, but you get more

freedom in your own ideas and track

record.”(#1)

(3) “There is verbal recognition for

my work. And you can get more

responsibility if you appreciate

that.” (#2)

(2) “We get compliments over

here.”(#3)

Resources-

TimeAv

(1) “There is not a lot of time to

work on NB projects.”(#1)

-


(1) “Time is a problem if you

want to go 100% for something,

then you need investment in new

people and that does not happen

often.”(#2)

(1) “There are brainstorm

sessions for new ideas, however

the priority is on the short-term

projects so there is not enough

time to work on these long-term

ideas.”(#3)

Resources-Money (1) “There is not a lot of money

to work on new things with high

uncertainty and a long-term

orientation”(#1)

(1) “There is never enough

money, so when there is money

needed, it is always well

considered.”(#2)

(1) “Money is here an issue

sometimes.” (#3)

(2) “A part of the marketing budget I

can spend to this market”.(#3)

Resources-

Networking

- (3) “There is a great possibility to

network here if you need additional

knowledge, e.g. I have a lot of ideas

and I can make good practical

pictures of it. Yet the marketing

department helps me to get a nice

story out of it, while I ask R&D for

technical support.” (#1)

(3) “We have enough capacity and

knowledge at our disciplines and

therefore we can easily network if

we need something”

Resources-Other - (2) “Investing in a manager who is

dedicated busy with this project or

market and employees see that also

as a sign that it is important.”(#3)

(3) “R&D has a lot of knowledge


and that stimulates the development

of a project. There are no obstacles

in terms of knowledge.” (#4)

Strategic- leg (1) “There is more strategic

legitimation for short-term

projects and that is also

stimulated by the BuilderCo

group. Despite the fact that this

location is free in a lot of

choices, short-term facts and

controls are important for the

BuilderCo group”(#1)

(1) “It is not the case that NB

are not strategic legitimized, but

the focus is on the short-term so

there will be the priority and

that result in short of money and

time for NB ideas or

projects”(#1)

(1) “There is no strategic

legitimation if the pay-back

period takes too long (short-

term.”(#1)

(1) “If there is an idea or trend

with a high chance potential

than there is strategic

legitimation, however this is

mostly the case if there are

results on the short-term, even if

other projects on the long-term

are more promising. This is also

the result of that we are part of a

larger company, which is led by

an Investment Company.”(#3)

-

Other: (1) “The organizational culture

can work obstructive. There are

a lot of people who work here

for a long time with their own

work principles and thoughts, so

getting the attention that we

have to think about other

-


products and markets is very

difficult because they do not

know the background or they

think that doing in the way we

are used to is the best way of

doing it.”(#3)

(1) “Some employees still think

in terms of the early years and

that works obstructive, because

those people are not open for

new developments. For them

everything has to be very

rigid.”(#4)

Table 18. Codebook ErgoCo.


Factors/code:

Culture-

mngtsup

- (3) “The CEO is open, and

enthusiastic about new ideas and

new projects. He takes the input

from others serious.”(#2)

(3) “The CEO stimulates new ideas

and technology push.”(#3)

(2) “I get support from the

management, but not in a very pro-

active way. However, creativity is

supported.”(#4)

(3) “The CEO stimulates to come

with creative ideas and these ideas

can be integrated in the

roadmap.”(#5)

Culture-workdis - (3)“The CEO always asks how I

think about a chance or a project,

there is a lot of space to make

mistakes if you learn from it.”(#1)


(3) “I get a lot of freedom, I have my

own responsibilities, two times in

week we discuss the situation but I

think that everyone can work

independent.”(#2)

(3) “We have a lot of freedom in our

work and that is a result of the

experience of employees.”(#3)

(3) “I have a lot of freedom in my

work, of course I have goals, but I

have freedom to archive these goals

and works stimulating for me,

because it enhances creativity.”(#4)

(3) “We have a job description and

responsibilities, but also a lot of

freedom to perform you tasks and do

other things.”(#4)

Culture-LTorien - (2) “There has always been an focus

on the long-term, however recent is

shifted more to the short-term”(#1)

(2) “There is a good balance

between long-term and short-term

orientation, the owner of this

organization has a long-term vision

and NPD’s are in line with that

vision, therefore we invest time and

money in that kind of projects which

do not deliver fast money.”(#3)

(2) “The focus is more on long-term,

all the NPD is for the long-

term”(#4).

(3) “This organization is a family

organization and the owner is

interested in long-term profit, and to

enhance long-term profit, innovation

is needed.”(#5)

(2) “There is balance between the

long-term and the short-term. In our

roadmap we choose for short-term


projects to earn money, but we also

working on long-term projects to

have sustaining business.”(#5)

Culture-Storien - -

Structure-

organic

(2) “There are a lot of procedures

because we deliver to the medical

industry. Sometimes this works

obstructive because is cost a lot of

time to test everything.”(#1)

(2) “There is a very flat structure,

therefore we can shift easily,

however, there is a hierarchy, the

boss decides.”(#1)

(3) “The decision power is

decentralized, we work in teams with

independent employees so if

decisions have to be made, we can

do that by ourselves and that will be

appreciated. This stimulates the

velocity of a project because a team

can be more decisive and does not

have to wait on the CEO”(#1)

(3) “Our organization is very flat,

informal and that stimulates the

development of the NP project.”(#3)

(3) “the structure is also very open,

financial facts are openly discussed

and presented to the

employees.”(#3)

(4) “We have a flat organization

with three layers. (#3)

Structure-

systems

- (2) “We have an digital idea system,

where I can upload an idea and the

CEO evaluate these ideas and start

them up.”(#1)

(1) “We try to structure our project,

but in reality it does not work that

way, because sometimes we have to

deliver faster. It is hard to maintain

de structure till the end of the

project”(#1)


(2) “There is a digital idea systes,

these ideas are evaluated by the

CEO. It works like a sort of safety

net for ideas and it creates

approachability”(#4)

Reward-Finrew - (1) “There is no financial

compensation, besides my salary.”

(1) “There is a yearly financial

compensation for the whole

organization, but not specified for

projects or ideas.”(#3)

(1) “There is no financial

compensation.”(#4)

(1) “There is a profit sharing

compensation, but that is not

connected with projects or

milestones.”(#5)

Reward-

Nonfinrew

- (2) “I got sometimes compliments,

but I do not get more

responsibility.”(#1)

(3) “If I come up with something

new such as a product, I get

recognition.”(#2)

(3) “ I get sometimes compliments

but they are more indirect, that fits

to the northern culture but I can

notice that they appreciate my

work.”(#3)

(3) “I get recognition if I do my

work outstanding.”(#4)

Resources-

TimeAv

(2) “Time can sometimes be an

obstructive factor because

employees are very busy, for

example the R&D department is

planned for the next two

years”.(#1)

(2) “Capacity and thus time can

(3) “For NPD such as multiple

functional ergo metric bicycle, time

is reserved to work on it.”(#3)


be an obstructive factor, because

everyone is busy and therefore

time to think sometimes is

lacking.”(#2)

(2) “For every discipline is one

employee, so if there is a problem

I have to make a choice and that

will lead to less time for

NPD.”(#3)

Resources-

Money

- (3) “In our roadmap, a certain

amount of money is determined for

the development of this NPD project.

“(#3)

Resources-

Networking

- (2) “I get all the space to network,

this organization is informal, all the

disciplines are present so I can

easily walk by the person I need for

getting knowledge.”(#1)

(3) “It is easy to network here, I can

get knowledge in every corner of the

organization, for example, our

developers often walk into the

production to ask things about the

nature of a raw material, this will

help to identify problems before they

occur.”(#2)

(3) “Networking is easy, that can be

a result of the small organization,

but employees can often gain

knowledge at other disciplines if

they need it. An example is that

development employees often

communicate with the production

employees.”(#3)

Resources-other - (3) “There are enough raw

materials to experiment with,

however if we do not have

something, we can buy it.” (#3)

Strategic- leg - (3) “There is also strategic


legitimation for projects which do

not belong to the core-business of

ErgoCo, because we are part of a

holding, which has a broader

scope.”(#1)

(3) “There is strategic legitimation

for long-term projects such as NPD

because the owner has a long-term

vision, and therefore time and money

is reserved.”(#3).

Other: (1) “I think that this organization

can use more junior employees

with a new, bright

perspective.”(#2)

-

Table 19. Codebook LightCo.


Factors/code:

Culture-

mngtsup

- (3) “Although, there is no focus on

this NB project, I get support in

terms of pro-active reactions, for

example, if there are resources

needed. Also in terms of repairing

broken things for the project is pro-

active covered.”(#3)

(2) “There is a lot of management

support, they are the most

stimulating in this NB project, this

has resulted in 2 internships

recently, however we need someone

who is dedicated involved. On the

other side the same management is

supporting the short-term projects

because we want to be the last men

standing.”(#4)

(3) “Searching for NB is stimulated

a lot, if there are chances, I get a lot


of support and freedom to work on

it”. (#5)

Culture-workdis - (2) “I have the freedom to work on

the NB project if I do not neglect the

other activities.”(#1)

(3) “I have a lot of freedom, I do not

have any limits.”(#2)

(3) “I have a lot of freedom, I make

appointments with my supervisor but

I get the freedom to try and that

works stimulating.”(#3)

(3) “Everyone has a lot of

responsibility and freedom in their

work.”(#3)

Culture-LTorien (1) “There is no focus on NB

creation projects because short

time earnings are more

important.”(#2)

-

Culture-Storien (3) “We are the cash cow for the

corporate organization”(#1)

(3) “There is a strong focus on

winning the end game, otherwise

we lose”(#1)

(3) “We give short-time projects

the priority and therefore NB

creation is not present in this

list.”(#1)

(3) “The focus is on the short-

term, on financial targets,

because we have to survive and

we are a cash cow for the

corporate organization.”(#1)

(3) “The focus of the organization

is on the short-term which means

that projects for cost-prize

-


reduction get the priority.”(#2)

(3) “The investments are more on

the short-term, we are more a

cash cow than a strategic

SBU.”(#2)

(3) “There is no focus on this NB

project because it is not the most

important project, we focus more

on cost price reduction because

we want to win the end

game.”(#3)

(3) “I think the focus is on the

short-term because projects are

based on keeping the customers

and this kind of projects get more

priority than long-term projects.

This works obstructive because I

do not have time for this NB

project.”(#3)

(3) “The corporate organization

focusses on KPI’s and they are

not interested how our division

conditions are over 15

years.”(#4)

(3) “The focus is on the short-

term, we have a top ten win

battles defined and that will help

us to win the end-game.”(#4)

(3) “ We try to start projects

which can deliver the most money

in a short time, therefore our

project leaders are busy with that

instead of NB on the long-

term.”(#5)

Structure-

organic

(3) “The backside of this flat

organization is that there is no

discipline which is dedicated

responsible for this NB

project.”(#1)

(2) “We have a flat structure, but

(3) “We have flat organization, we

look broader than or disciplines so

there is a lot of knowledge sharing

and shared vision and that

stimulates”(#1)

(3) “The structure is very flat and


sometimes also bureaucratic with

a lot of rules and that can work

obstructive.”(#5)

the lines are short even with the

CEO of the SBU and that stimulates

because we can switch fast and there

is fast feedback on questions.”(#2)

(3) “If I have ideas, it is not the case

that I have to go to my supervisor

and that he has to go to his

supervisor. Therefore we can switch

fast because we can ask easily

support and that works stimulating”

(3)“I can even easily talk with the

plant manager for feedback and

compliments”(#3)

(3) “We have a very flat structure

and therefore everyone knows the

project.”(#4)

(3) “For NB ideas or projects we do

not get obstructed by

procedures.”(#4)

Structure-

systems

- (3) “There is a system for evaluating

and selecting ideas, first we have to

make a plan with a budget etc. and

we have to score it with the MT

based on the success rate.”(#1)

(3) “There is a structured process

for new projects”(#1)

(3) “Projects are carried out by a

commission , where a milestone

structure is used and where every

time the progress has to be

reported.”(#2)

(3) “We work with project charts

and based on that we rank them and

decide which projects we are going

to do.”(#3)

(2) “We have a good project

structure where ideas get evaluated

and selected, however we do not

used something similar for NBC. We

were used to do it in the same way,


but since the NB department is

decomposed, we do not use it

anymore.”(#5)

Reward-Finrew - (1) “There is not a reward structure

for projects, however I can get a

bonus if my work was

excessive.”(#2)

(1) “Rewards are present, but not

for milestones in projects or

projects, more in terms of personal

development.”(#3)

(1) “There is not a financial reward

system, at least I do not know that

someone had earned special

recognition”. (#4)

Reward-

Nonfinrew

- (2) “Not very direct, however that

depends on the department, but they

let me know that they are happy with

my work, and that works

stimulating.”(#2)

(2) “We get verbal recognition, but

not in terms of more

responsibilities.”(#3)

Resources-

TimeAv

(1) “The problem is that this NB

project is for everyone on top of

their normal work”(#1)

(1) “We do not have capacity to

assign someone dedicated to the

NB project”(#1)

(1) “Time is a problem if the

project is on the long –term, then

there is no focus.”(#2)

(1) “Capacity is a problem,

because if there are NB ideas we

cannot perform them”. (#2)

(1) “Sometimes there are so much

projects, that I do not have the

time to do everything, projects are

then categorized with priors, but

-


this NB project does not have a

prior, so I had no time to work on

it and that does not stimulate.”

(#3)

(1) The capacity is a problem

because we have a restricted

group of employees who have to

focus on our production, then we

also have incremental innovation

on products, so then there is not

much time left for NB.”(#5)

Resources-

Money

(2) “There is no enough money

for the NB project, the money we

invest in the project depends on

the financial results.”(#1)

(1) “Money is a problem if the

project is on the long –term, then

there is no focus.”(#2)

Resources-

Networking

- (3) “We can easily network with

each other.”(#2)

(3) “I can walk into every

department to gain knowledge”(#3)

(3) “Networking is very easy in this

organization, if I need knowledge, I

can easily go to other departments,

the most employees work here for a

long time and even if someone has

switched in his function, I can find

them. “(#4)

Resources-Other (1) “We miss a lot of knowledge

for this NB project because the

person with a lot of knowledge

about this project, is not there

anymore.”(#3)

(3) “Resources by means of raw

materials are not the problem, and

if something is not available than we

buy it.”(#4)

Strategic- leg (1) “There are fixed rules, a

project gets strategic legitimation

if we invest in project with a

payback period of two years, that

does not work for NB” (#1)

-


(1) “ We do not get the possibility

of the corporate organization to

work on this NB project so we

have to work under the

radar”(#1)

(1) “Projects with a lot of

uncertainty but potential high

profits on the long-term do not get

a lot of support. There is more

support for low hanging

fruit.”(#2)

(1) “There is more strategic

legitimation for short-time

projects because they deliver fast

money, therefore we do not have

much time for long-term projects

such as this NB project.”(#4)

(1) “Our goal is to win the end

game thus short-term projects are

more stimulated, and that takes

all our time. NB projects for the

long-term is difficult because our

corporate organization will not

provide us with the needed

resources.”(#5)

Other: - -

Master Thesis Bas Haarhuis

Appendix VII: Total quantitative results

Table 20. Quantitative results management support.

Case Mean Standard deviation N=

TechServCo 8.88 .144 4

BuilderCo 3.09 .527 4

ErgoCo 2.72 .668 4

LightCo 3.21 .496 5

Table 21. Quantitative results work discretion/autonomy.




ErgoCo 4.32 .486 4

LightCo 4.34 .577 5

Table 22. Quantitative results structure (organic)5.




ErgoCo 4.75 1.084 4

LightCo 5.49 0.404 5

5 The organicity scale is measured with a 7 point Likert scale; therefore quantitative scores can vary from 1 till 7.


Table 23. Quantitative results administrative mechanisms.


TechServCo 2.38 1.109 4

BuilderCo 2.67 1.155 3

ErgoCo 2.75 .957 4

LightCo 3.30 1.483 5

Table 24. Quantitative results non-financial rewards.




ErgoCo 2.30 .739 4

LightCo 3.76 .654 5

Table 25. Quantitative results financial rewards.



BuilderCo 2.40 1.071 4

ErgoCo 1.15 .100 4

LightCo 2.04 .607 5


Table 26. Quantitative results resources.




ErgoCo 2.92 .400 4

LightCo 2.40 .460 5

Table 27. Quantitative results resources (networking).6




ErgoCo 4.47 .389 4

LightCo 5.05 .859 5

6 The network scale is measured with a 7 point Likert scale; therefore quantitative scores can vary from 1 till 7.

which internal organizational factors determine the …

Documents